-* 

\ 


I 


T  TTm  A  i->Tr          -nkTTTT^r<i 


</ 

University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


wi-unout;  rne  authority  of  the 
Librarian. 


5.  All  members   are   requested  to  keep 
clean  books   and   papers,   and  not  to 
mark  with  pen  or  pencil, 

6.  These   rul  3    will  be  strictly  enforced, 


/ 

IE  TRUTH    DEFENDET), 


" 


A  Reply  to  Elder  D.  H.  Bays' 
ines  and    Dogmas  of   Mormonism. 


BY,  ELDER  HEMAN  C.    SMITH, 
i     Church  Historian. 


LIBRARY* 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  BOARD  OP  PUBLICATION  OF  THE 

REORGANIZED   CHURCH  OF  JESUS   CHRIST  OF 

LATTER  DAY   SAINTS, 

1905, 


Copyrighted  by  the  BOARD  OP  PUBLICATION  of  the  Reor- 
ganized Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  Publish- 
ers and  Proprietors,  in  the  year  1901,  in  the  office  of  the 
Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


HERALD   PUBLISHING  HOUSB, 
LAMONI,  IOWA. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

"THE  Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism  Examined 
and  Refuted"  is  the  title  of  a  book  written  by  one  uElder 
Davis  H.  Bays,"  and  published  by  the  "St.  Louis  Christian 
Publishing1  Company  1897." 

The  Publishing  Company  in  a  recent  catalogue  has  given 
this  work  the  following  indorsement: 

The  subject  is  given  a  thorough  treatment  by  one  well  versed 
in  Mormonism.  The  author's  knowledge  of  the  teachings,  doc- 
trines and  dogmas  of  the  Mormon  Church  was  obtained  by  a 
close  relationship  with  all  the  prominent  leaders  of  that  faith.  I/ 
It  is  certainly  a  book  of  reference,  accurate  and  reliable. 
Every  -important  question  pertaining  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  Mormons  is  discussed  and  answered  from  a  Biblical  and 
philosophical  standpoint.  The  author  does  not  use  ridicule  or 
burlesque  to  supply  the  place  of  logic  and  argument.  He 
meets  every  question  with  painstaking  arguments,  showing 
great  familiarity  with  the  fundamental  principles  relied  on 
by  Mormons  to  sustain  their  doctrines.  A  careful  study  of 
this  work  will  convince  the  reader  that  the  author  has  com- 
pletely examined  and  refuted  the  Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of 
Mormonism. 

The  indorsement  given  the  book  by  a  respectable  pub- 
lishing house,  rather  than  the  book  itself,  furnishes  the 
apology,  if  one  is  needed,  for  the  consideration  given  it  in 
this  treatise. 

The  anxiety  of  the  publishers  to  recommend  everything 
opposed  to  "Mormonism"  is  apparent,  however,  for  the 
same  page  of  the  catalogue  where  the  above  indorsement 
is  found  contains  the  following  concerning  the  work  of 
Elder  Clark  Braden  in  the  Braden  and  Kelley  debate: 

A  thorough  expose  of  the  real  orgin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  Mormonism. 


*i*** 

4  INTRODUCTORY. 

It  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Braden's  theory  of  the  origin 
cf  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  Spalding  Romance,  while 
Elder  Bays  says: 

The  Spaulding  story  is  a  failure.  Do  not  attempt  to  rely  upon 
it— it  will  let  you  down.  The  entire  theory  connecting  Sidney 
Rigdon  and  the  Spaulding  Romance  with  Joseph  Smith  in  origi- 
nating the  Book  of  Mormon  must  be  abandoned. — Doctrines 
and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism,  p.  25. 

The  inconsistency  of  a  publishing  house  recommending 
two  theories  diametrically  opposite  is  too  apparent  to  need 
comment,  and  is  only  cited  here  to  show  the  prejudice 
prompting  the  indorsement. 

Again;  the  "Christian  Church"  in  indorsing  Elder  Bays, 
and  his  theory,  has  made  a  humiliating  concession  that  we 
here  present  in  the  language  of  Elder  Charles  Derry,  as 
follows: 

The  elder  strikes  a  deathblow  at  the  long  cherished  theory 
of  the  "Christians"  and  other  opponents  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon in  showing  that  Sidney  Rigdon  had  no  connection 
whatever  with  the  Book  of  Mormon  until  the  latter  had  been 
published  to  the  world. 

As  Elder  Bays  in  the  work  under  consideration  presents 
himself  not  only  as  an  advocate  but  as  a  witness  in  the 
case  against  "Mormonism,"  it  is  proper  that  the  reader 
should  know  something  of  the  witness. 

In  presenting  a  brief  statement  of  the  career  of  Elder 
Bays  we  disclaim  any  desire  to  do  him  an  injury,  our  only 
object  being  to  inform  the  public  who  it  is  that  testifies. 

Elder  Davis  H.  Bays  was  born  in  Colorado  county, 
Texas,  March  5,  1839;  but  later  his  parents  resided  in 
Montgomery  county,  Texas;  where  in  the  year  1848  they 
first  heard  the  principles  of  the  gospel  as  taught  by  the 
Latter  Day  Saints,  through  Elders  John  Hawley  and  Joel 
Miles,  who  were  then  connected  with  the  colony  in  western 
Texas  under  Lyman  Wight.  They  soon  removed  to  the 
headquarters,  and  cast  their  lot  with  the  colony,  and  were 
identified  with  them  for  some  time. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

Subsequently  they  became  dissatisfied  and  emigrated  tc 
Beaver  Island,  in  Lake  Michigan,  where  James  J.  Strang 
was  located,  and  were  associated  with  the  Strangite  move- 
ment until  the  death  of  Strang  in  1856. 

Later  the  Bays  family  emigrated  westward,  and  on  May 
27,  1861,  Davis  H.  Bays  united  with  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  at  Council 
Bluffs,  Iowa,  being  baptized  by  Elder  Charles  Derry.  On 
the  14th  of  June  following  he  was  ordained  an  elder  at  the 
same  place  by  Elders  W.  W.  Blair  and  Edmund  C.  Briggs. 
After  this  but  little  was  heard  of  him  for  a  few  years,  but 
subsequently  he  became  quite  active  as  a  minister,  and  did 
considerable  missionary  work  in  Iowa,  Nebraska,  Kansas, 
Missouri,  and  Texas.  On  September  14,  1878,  he  was 
ordained  a  seventy  by  Elder  J.  R.  Lambert  and  others, 
at  Galland's  Grove,  Iowa.  His  ministerial  career  was  not 
without  its  trials,  ?nd  he  was  on  one  or  more  instances 
silenced  or  released  from  appointment  subject  to  inquiry, 
but  so  far  as  we  know  nothing  of  a  serious  character  was 
developed  against  him  on  investigation  until  about  1880. 

At  the  election  of  that  year  he  was  candidate  for 
assessor  in  Grove  township,  Shelby  county,  Iowa,  and 
took  quite  an  active  part  in  the  campaign,  during  which 
considerable  feeling  was  engendered  between  him  and  some 
of  his  brethren  in  the  church  who  were  opposed  to  him 
politically,  resulting  in  a  heated  political  quarrel  between 
him  and  Elder  John  B.  Hunt  on  election  day.  Personal 
reflections  were  indulged  in,  in  consequence  of  which  Elder 
Bays  preferred  charges  against  Elder  Hunt,  setting  forth 
that  Elder  Hunt  had  without  just  cause  accused  Elder 
Bays  of  being  religiously  and  politically  dishonest,  and  of 
accusing  Elder  Bays  of  stealing.  A  court  of  investigation 
was  summoned,  composed  of  five  elders,  before  whom  the 
case  was  heard.  The  court  in  presenting  its  findings,  after 
summing  up  the  evidence,  said: 


6  INTRODUCTORY. 

Therefore  the  charge  for  declaring  that  the  defendant  J.  B. 
Hunt  believed  plaintiff  (D.  H.  Bays)  to  be  religiously  dishonest 
without  just  ground  is  not  sustained. 

That  of  political  dishonesty  cannot  be  proven  or  disproven  by 
any  evidence  before  us. 

As  to  the  charge  of  stealing  we  cannot  say  more  or  less  than 
has  been  said,  that  in  the  attempt  of  the  defendant  to  rebut  the 
charge  developments  were  made  that  we  consider  hurtful  to 
the  reputation  of  the  plaintiff  (D.  H.  Bays). 

Three  of  the  court  signed  these  findings,  the  other  two 
dissenting.  The  findings  were  dated  March  27,  1881. 

Elder  Bays  appealed  this  case  to  the  district  conference. 
The  conference  appointed  a  court  consisting  of  three  elders, 
who  on  July  24,  1881,  presented  their  findings,  confirming 
the  decision  of  the  lower  court  ia  the  first  and  second 
counts,  but  declaring  that 

The  evidence  does  not  show  that  the  plaintiff  (D.  H.  Bays) 
did  or  would  steal  property. 

Therefore  deciding  the  charge  against  Hunt  sustained  so 
far  as  it  related  to  accusing  Bays  of  stealing. 

About  the  same  time  of  instituting  proceedings  in  the 
courts  of  the  church,  Elder  Bays  instituted  proceedings 
against  Elder  Hunt  in  the  Shelby  County  Circuit  Court, 
for  slander,  claiming  damages  in  the  sum  of  ten  thousand 
dollars.  This  case  was  filed  March  22,  1881,  and  after 
some  delays  was  decided  in  favor  of  defendant,  Elder  Bays 
failing  to  secure  judgment.  He  then  appealed  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  the  Supreme 
Court  at  its  September  term  for  1882  confirmed  the 
decision  of  the  lower  court. 

This  ended  litigation.  Anyone  curious  to  know  more  of 
this  case  and  of  the  evidence  produced  therein  is  referred 
to  the  Supreme  Court  Documents  in  the  case  of  Bays  vs. 
Hunt. 

After  this  Elder  Bays  resumed  his  ministerial  labors, 
but  his  efforts  were  feeble,  and  he  failed  to  regain  the 
prestige  that  he  had  before  enjoyed.  The  next  ten  years 


INTRODUCTORY.  7 

he  attracted  but  little  attention,  making  one  or  two  short 
missionary  trips,  but  not  continuing  in  the  work  long  at  a 
time.  In  1892  he  presented  his  resignation  as  a  minister 
to  the  General  Conference  which  convened  at  Independ- 
ence, Missouri,  April  6. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  said  resignation  which 
will  disclose  the  condition  of  Elder  Bays'  mind  at  the  time: 

KALAMAZOO,  Mich.,  April  1,  1892. 

To  the  President  and  Brethren  in  Conference  Assembled: 
Dear  Brethren. 

As  circumstances  over  which  I  have  no  control  seemingly 
preclude  the  possibility  of  my  being  present  at  the  coming 
annual  session  of  the  General  Conference,  I  take  this  method  of 
reporting  to  your  honorable  body,  the  condition  in  which  I  find 
myself  both  respecting  my  faith  and  the  performance  of  minis- 
terial duties. 

For  several  years  I  have  found  myself  doubting  matters  and 
things  which  my  colaborers  and  the  church  at  large  expect 
me  to  indorse. 

When  these  difficulties  first  began  to  appear,  I  sought, 
through  a  more  thorough  examination  of,  and  comparison 
between,  the  standard  works  of  the  church  to  remove  them. 
But  instead  of  accomplishing  the  task  imposed,  I  found  the 
situation  to  become  more  grave  and  complicated. 

I  have  sought  light  upon  the  vexed  questions  from  every 
available  source,  but  without  avail.  It  was  with  feelings  of 
profound  regret  that  I  discovered  myself  gradually,  but  cer- 
tainly, drifting  away  from  the  church  and  people  with  whom  I 
had  spent  the  best  days  of  my  young,  as  well  as  my  mature, 
manhood.  And  I  pursue  this  course  today,  not  from  choice, 
not  because  it  affords  me  pleasure  to  do  so,  but,  rather,  out  of  a 
deep  sense  of  duty,  not  only  to  myself,  but  to  you  and  to  the 
church  whose  servants  and  ministers  you  are. 

As  I  find  myself  so  out  of  harmony  with  the  body  that  I  can- 
not indorse  without  mental  reservation  its  fundamental  doc- 
trines and  tenets,  there  remains  but  one  course  for  me 
honorably  to  pursue,  and  that  is  to  resign  my  ministerial  office. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  I  hereby  tender  my  resignation  as  a  min- 
ister, in  the  First  Quorum  of  Seventy,  of  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints. 

Without  a  doubt  you  will  expect  me  to  give  my  reasons  for 
this  rather  unusual  course. 

My  reasons  are  briefly  as  follows: 

1 .   The  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants. 

After  years  of  careful  investigation  of  the  facts,  as  well  as  the 


8  INTRODUCTORY. 

circumstances  under  which  the  book  was  written,  I  have 
arrived  at  .the  conclusion  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  be 
offered  in  support  of  its  claim  to  divine  inspiration.  As  a  min-' 
ister  of  the  church  I  would  be  expected  to  defend  its  claim  to 
be  divinely  inspired,  and  acknowledge  its  authority,  neither  of 
which  can  I  do  with  a  clear  conscience.  To  act  honestly  both 
with  myself  and  the  church,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  resign. 

2.  The  Book  of  Mormon. 

As  to  the  ethical  status  of  this  book,  I  think  no  unfavorable 
comment  can  reasonably  be  made.  Its  moral  precepts  are 
unquestionably  good.  They  are  all  that  its  friends  claim  for  it, 
and,  indeed,  superior  in  some  respects  to  those  of  the  Bible. 

But  the  mere  fact  that  its  moral  precepts  may  be  regarded  as 
faultless,  cannot  serve  to  prove  it  to  be  of  divine  origin. 

The  principal  point  of  strength  in  favor  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  of  the  profound  mystery  sur- 
rounding its  origin.  No  living  man  knows  anything  whatever  of 
the  facts  of  its  true  origin.  To  say  the  least,  its  inspiration  and 
authority  are  extremely  doubtful. 

3.  The  Bible. 

Ministers  of  the  gospel  are  expected  to  believe  and  teach  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible.  During  the  later  years  of  my  ministry 
I  made  this  a  question  of  special  inquiry,  and,  quite  contrary 
to  the  generally  received  opinion,  I  found  nothing  to  sustain 
the  belief  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  or  any  particular 
book  in  either,  were  written  by  divine  inspiration.  Hence  I 
have  been  led  to  reject  the  dojrma  of  "The  Divine  Inspiration 
of  the  Bible,"  as  wholly  untenable. 

4.  Not  only  do  I  find  that  the  writers  of  the  several  books  of 
the  Bible,  whoever  they  may  be,  do  not  claim   to  have  written 
the   books    attributed    to   them    by   inspiration,    but   I    find   a 
marked,    and    irreconcilable  disagreement    between    them,    on 
questions    of    vital    importance;    thereby   destroj'ing   the   last 
vestige  of  any  ground  upon    which    to   base   an   argument   in 
support  of  the  dogma  of  Plenary  Inspiration. 

The  remaining  part  of  the  letter  consists  of  argument  in 
support  of  the  foregoing  and  of  objections  to  the  Inspired 
Translation  of  the  Bible. 

We  have  given  the  foregoing  items  of  history  not  to 
prejudice  the  case  against  Elder  Bays,  but  as  he  assumes 
to  be  a  witness  against  "Mormonisin"  to  place  his  conclu- 
sion, and  the  causes  leading  up  to  the  conclusion,  before 
the  reader  that  he  may  form  his  own  estimate  regarding 
the  testimony  of  this  willing  and  self-appointed  witness. 


INTRODUCTORY.  9 

Since  severing  his  affiliation  with  the  Saints  he  united 
with  the  Baptist  Church  with  which  he  remained  but  a 
short  time,  and  then  transferred  his  allegiance  to  the 
"Christian  Church"  with  which  he  now  stands  identified. 

In  preparing  this  treatise  I  have  been  placed  under 
obligations  to  Elder  Charles  Derry,  who  kindly  extended 
valuable  aid  by  placing  at  my  disposal  his  manuscript 
written  on  the  subject.  Others  have  given  suggestions 
and  furnished  documentary  material  which  have  been  of 
great  benefit,  among  whom  are  Brn.  Joseph  Smith,  J.  R. 
Lambert,  J.  W.  Wight,  I.  N.  White,  M.  H.  Forscutt, 
T.  W.  Williams,  C.  E.  Butterworth,  D.  F.  Lambert, 
R.  Etzenhouser,  J.  C.  Clapp,  F.  M.  Sheehy,  H.  O. 
Smith,  R.  S.  Salyards,  and  John  Pett. 

With  a  prayer  that  this  little  volume  may  lead  to  a 
closer  investigation  of  the  subjects  treated  upon,  I  sub- 
mit it  to  the  judgment  of  a  discerning  public. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   1. 

Misquotations— Historical  Mistakes — Oliver  Cowdery — Book  of 
Mormon —Lineage;  how  Determined — Missions  of  Bays — • 
Miraculous  Power — Strang's  Organization — Endowment — J. 
W.  Brings — Charles  Derry — Martin  Harris — Three  Witnesses 
—Facsimile  of  Characters— Bays  Misrepresents — Laying  on 
of  Hands — Bays  Wrong  on  his  own  "History — Wrong  on  Hig- 
bees — Moral  Status  of  Bays.  .  .  13 

CHAPTER  2. 

Bays'  Claim  to  Superior  Advantage — Condemns  Spalding  Story 
—Foundation  —  Sam — Spiritual  Gifts- Cases  of  Healing — The 
Commission— Joseph  Smith  Healed — Medicine— Questions.  38 

CHAPTER    3. 

Corruption — Church  Organization— Patriarch— Office  of  Apos- 
tle—  Bays  Differs  from  Peter— Apostle  an  Ambassador  — 
Apostolic  Qualifications — Rule  of  Succession  —  First  Presi- 
dency—Patriarch— The  Church 58 

CHAPTER   4. 

Apostles  -Foundation  of  the  Church— The  Teeter  Board— Call- 
ing of  Ministers— Ordination  — Priesthood— Choosing  Apostles 

—  Jesus   in    Solemn  Assembly 79 

CHAPTER  5. 

Book  of  Mormon  —  Revelation  —  Present  Conditions  —  Land 
Shadowing  With  Wings  —  Languages  of  Plates  —  Isaiah 
Twenty-Ninth  Chapter— Palestine  Past  and  Present.  .  98 

CHAPTER  6. 

Book  of  Mormon'— Harris'  Visit  to  New  York— Anthon  Wrong 
—Bays  Writes  to  Linguists— Angell's  Letter  — Davis'  Letter— 
Moldenke's  Letter— Anthon's  Letter— Testimony  Compared 

—  Archaeology  —  Moldenke's  Embarrassment  —  Records  — 
Materials   Written   on  —  Anthon's    Theory  —  Testimony  of 
Witnesses 115 

11 


12  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  7. 

Doctrine  —  Faith  —  Repentance  —  Baptism  —  Laying  on  of 
Hands— Resurrection  and  Eternal  Judgment.  .  .  143 

CHAPTER  8. 

Polygamy  —  Conflicting  Statements  —  General  Assembly  — 
Conference  Resolution — Bays'  Summary—  Marriage  —  Ben- 
nett's Testimony  —  Certificates  —  Bennett's  Perfidy— Nauvoo 
Expositor  —  Hiram  Brown  —  Richard  Hewitt -Statement  of 
Emily  D.  P.  Young— Of  Lovina  Walker-Of  Emma  Smith  — 
Of  Southard-Of  Mrs.  Thompson-Of  Joseph  Smith-Of  Mr. 
Soby— Of  Mr.  Fullmer — Of  Mr.  Grover — Of  Brigham  Young — 
Of  Mrs.  Bidamon  — Of  William  Marks— Factions  on  Polygamy 

—  Statement  of  Robinsons 152 

CHAPTER  9. 

The  Gathering — Zion's  Camp,  Purpose  of— Committees  Negoti- 
ate—Statement  of  Joseph  Smith  — Of  Lyman  Wight — Of  H. 
C.  Kimball— Of  P.  P.  Pratt— Garbling— Statement  of  Gillium 
— Propositions  of  Mormons  —  More  Garbling  —  Mistakes 
Possible 192 

CHAPTER  10. 

Prophecy  on  Rebellion  —  Bays'  Conclusions  —  Conclusions 
Examined-Letter  to  N.  E.  Seaton— Affidavit  of  N.  D.  Earl  — 
Statement  of  John  Hyde -Letter  to  Calhoun  — Nation's  Woe 

—  Saints'    Loyalty  —  Missouri's   Disgrace  —  Quincy   Argus  — 
Democratic  Association — Western  Messenger— General  Swing's 
Order— Cause  of  "Injured  Innocence" — Petition  to  President 
Hayes— Patriot— Revelation  of  1832— Evidence  of  Fulfillment 
—Conclusion.  203 


Reply  To   D.  H.  Bays. 


CHAPTER  1. 

Misquotations-Historical  Mistakes -Oliver  Cowdery— Book  of 
Mormon — Lineage;  how  Determined  — Missions  of  Bays— 
Miraculous  Power—  Strang's  Orsranization  — Endowment- J. 
W.  Briggs — Charles  Derry— Martin  Harris  — Three  Witnesses 
—  Facsimile  of  Characters- Bays  Misrepresents— Laying  on 
of  Hands  — Bays  Wrong  on  his  own  History — Wrong  on  Hig- 
bees- Moral  Status  of  Bays. 

IN  the  examination  of  the  "Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of 
Mormonism"  we  shall  not  invite  attention  to  all  the  errors 
in  the  book,  for  this  would  require  more  time  and  space 
than  the  subject  demands.  Some  of  them  will  answer  our 
purpose  in  showing  the  utter  unreliability  of  the  work. 
The  writer  has  been  surprised  at  some  of  these,  as  he  had 
reason  to  believe  that  Elder  Bays  knew  better  than  to 
make  some  statements  that  he  has  made.  However,  we 
must  meet  the  statements  of  Elder  Bays  just  as  we  find 
them,  though  we  might  wish  for  his  sake  that  he  had  con- 
fined himself  to  the  truth.  One  of  the  most  painful 
features,  as  will  appear  as  we  proceed,  is  his  garbling  of 
quotations,  while  his  assumed  fairness  leads  him  to  claim 
to  state  the  position  of  the  Saints  in  their  own  language. 
We  are  met  with  one  instance  of  this  right  in  the  outset  of 
our  task.  On  page  19  Elder  Bays  quotes  from  Joseph 
Smith  as  follows: 

I  was  answered  that  I  should  join  none  of  them,  for  they  were 
all  wrong;  and  the  personage  who  addressed  me  said  that  all 
their  creeds  were  an  abomination  in  his  sight;  and  that  the 
professors  were  all  corrupt. 

The  correct  reading  of  the  passage  is  as  follows: 

I  was  answered  that  I  should  join  none  of  them,  for  they 
were  all  wrong;  and  the  personage  who  addressed  me  said  that 
all  their  creeds  were  an  abomination  in  his  sight;  that  those 
professors  were  all  corrupt. 

13 


14  REPLY  TO  D.  H.   BAYS. 

It.  will  be  seen  that  Elder  Bays  has  inserted  the  word 
and  and  substituted  the  word  the  for  those.  This  separated 
from  the  context  might  seem  to  be  a  slight  error,  but 
when  we  consider  the  context  we  learn  that  Joseph  went 
thereto  inquire  regarding  the  teaching  of  certain  men  in 
his  neighborhood,  of  whom  he  says: 

A  scene  of  bad  feeling  ensued;  priest  against  priest;  convert 
against  convert;  so  that  all  of  the  good  feeling  entertained,  one 
for  another,  was  entirely  lost  in  a  strife  of  words  and  a  contest 
of  opinions. 

The  word  those  in  the  original  evidently  referred  to  those 
parties  under  consideration  regarding  whom  the  inquiry 
was  made,  but  Elder  Bays  has  made  the  passage  to  reaJ 
so  as  to  include  all  professors. 

And  that  this  was  his  design  is  evident  from  his  com- 
ment following  this  garbled  quotation.  He  says: 

This  shows  the  light  in  which  the  founder  of  Mormonism 
viewed  all  other  churches  and  creeds.  The  churches  were  all 
wrong,  their  creeds  an  abomination,  and  their  teachers  and 
professors  all  corrupt. 

This  is  repeated  on  pages  33  and  76.  Men  may  by  mis- 
take misquote,  but  when  they  base  a  conclusion  upon  their 
interpolations  it  is  impossible  to  excuse  them  from  a 
design  to  misrepresent. 

We  here  place  in  parallel  columns  quotations  from  Bays' 
book  with  original  passages,  italicizing  words  that  are 
different.  We  do  not  exhaust  this  list,  for  this  would 
require  too  much  space,  as  his  quotations  are  in  a  majority 
of  instances  garbled.  We  do  not  say  that  this  was  always 
done  through  design;  but  whether  done  willfully  or  care- 
lessly, the  book  is  unreliable  as  a  book  of  reference.  The 
following  specimens  will  illustrate  the  correctness  of  our 
statement: 

"After  having  made  diligent  After  having  made  diligent 
search  among  all  the  societies  search  among  all  of  the  so- 
and  organizations  extant,  with  cieties  and  organizations  ex- 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 


15 


your  guide  [the  Bible]  in 
hand,  where  do  you  find 
amidst  them  all,  my  friend 
and  reader,  an  institution  in 
exact  accord  with  the  pat- 
tern of  Christ's  Church?  Ah, 
echo  answers,  Where? 

Yet  one  established  accord- 
ing to  this  plan  is  all  that 
God  has  ever  deigned  to  ac- 
knowledge as  his.  What  will 
you  do?  Throw  away  your 
guide,  and  join  the  daughters 
of  the  old  mother,  or  some  in- 
stitution of  men?" — Doctrines 
and  t)ogmas  of  Mormonism, 
p.  32. 

"(1)  Faith  in  God.  (2)  Faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  (3)  In  the 
Holy  Ghost.  (4)  Belief  in  the 
doctrine  of  repentance.  (5)  In 
baptism.  ((>)  In  the  laying  on 
of  hands.  (7)  In  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  (8)  Eternal 
judgment.  (9)  The  Lord's 
Supper.  (10)  The  washing  of 
feet.  These,  together  with 
.  .  .  the  endowment  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  realized  and 
enjoyed  in  the  testimony  oj 
Jesus, — such  as  faith,  wisdom, 
knowledge,  dreams,  prophe- 
cies, tongues,  interpretation  of 
tongues,  visions,  healings,"  etc. 
— Doctrines  and  Dogmas,  pp. 
33,  34. 


14 'One  day,  when  I  arose 
from  the  table,  I  walked  di- 
rectly to  the  door  and  began 
vomiting  most  profusely.  I 
raised  large  quantities  of  blood 
and  poisonous  matter,  and  so 
great  were  the  contortions  of 
my  muscular  system,  that  my 
jaw  was  dislocated  in  a  few 


tant,  with  your  guide  in  your 
hand,  where  do  you  find 
amidst  them  all,  my  friend 
and  reader,  an  institution  in 
exact  accord  with  the  pattern 
given  of  Christ's  church?  All, 
echo  answers,  — where?  Yet 
one  established  according  to 
this  plan  is  all  that  God  has 
ever  deigned  to  acknowledge 
as  his.  What  will  you  do? 
Throw  away  your  guide,  and 
join  a  daughter  of  the  old 
mother,  or  some  institution  of 
men? -Presidency  and  Priest- 
hood, pp.  188,  189. 

(1.)  Faith  in  God.  (2.)  Faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  (3.)  In  the 
Holy  Ghost.  (4.)  Belief  in  the 
doctrine  of  repentance.  (5.) 
In  baptism.  (0.)  In  the  laying 
on  of  hands.  (7)  In  the  res- 
urrection of  the  'dead;  and 
(8.)  Eternal  judgment.  (9.) 
The»Lord's  supper.  (10.)  The 
washing  of  feet.  These,  to- 
gether with  an  .humble  and 
godly  icalk,  including  all  the  ex- 
cellences set  out  in  the  moral  code, 
with  the  endowment  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  realized  and 
enjoyed  in  the  testimony  of 
Jesus, — such  as  faith,  wisdom, 
knowledge,  dreams,  prophe- 
cies, tongues,  interpretations, 
visions,  healings,  etc.  — Presi- 
dency and  Priesthood,  pp.  83, 
84. 

One  day,  when  I  arose  from 
ihe  dinner  table,  I  walked 
directly  to  the  door  and 
commenced  vomiting  most 
profusely.  I  raised  large 
quantities  of  blood  and  poison- 
ous matter,  and  so  great  were 
the  contortions  of  my  muscu- 
lar system,  that  my  jaw  was 


16 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 


moments.  This  I  succeeded 
in  replacing  with  my  own 
hands,  and  I  then  made  my 
way  to  Brother  Whitney  (who 
was  on  his  bed)  as  speedily  as 
possible.  He  laid  his  hands 
on  me,  and  administered  to  me 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
I  was  healed  in  an  instant,  al- 
though the  effect  o£  the  poison 
had  been  so  powerful  as  to 
cause  much  of  the  hair  to 
become  loosened  from  my 
head.'5  (Tullidge's  History, 
pages  141,  142.)  —  Doctrines 
and  Dogmas,  p.  (53. 

"In  the  New  Testament 
there  is  a  history  given  of  the 
foundation  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  in  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles. It  sets  forth  the  class  of 
officers  belonging  thereto,  and 
defines  their  duties."  (Presi- 
dency and  Priesthood,  page 
49). — Doctrines  and  Dogmas, 
p.  77. 

"In  the  light  of  the  above 
facts,  can  any  organization, 
however  proud  and  haughty 
in  its  claims  or  large  its  mem- 
bers, not  having  these  God-sent 
and  heaven-inspired  officers,  be 
theChurch  of  Christ?"  (Ibid, 
page  45). — Doctrines  and  Dog- 
mas, p.  78. 

"It  is  not  expedient  in  me 
that  the  Quorum  of  the  Presi- 
dency and  the  Quorum  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles  shall  be  filled, 
"  for  reasons  which  will  be  see^i 
and  known  unto  you  in  due 
time." — Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants, sec.  122,  par.  4,  page 
353. 

When  it  is  noted  that  Elder  Bays  in  connection  with  the 
last  quotation  is  striving  to  show  that  the  Reorganized 


dislocated  in  a  few  moments. 
This  I  succeeded  in  replacing 
with  my  own  hands,  and  I 
then  made  my  way  to  brother 
Whitney  (who  was  on  his  bed', 
as  speedily  as  possible.  He 
laid  his  hands  on  me,  and  ad- 
ministered in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  and  I  was  healed  in  an 
instant,  although  the  effect  of 
the  poison  had  been  so  power- 
ful as  to  cause  much  of  the 
hair  to  become  loosened  from 
my  head.—  Tullidge's  History, 
pp.  141,  142. 

In  the  New  Testament  there 
is  a  history  given  of  \.\\?  forma- 
tion of  the  church  of  Christ, 
etc.-  Presidency  and  Priest- 
hood, p.  49. 


In  the  light  of  the  above 
facts,  can  any  organization, 
however  proud  and  haughty 
in  its  claims,  or  large  its  num- 
bers, etc.  —  Presidency  and 
Priesthood,  p.  45. 


It  is  not  yet  expedient  in  me, 
etc.-  Doctrine  and  Covenants, 
sec.  122,  par.  4. 


REPLY   TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  17 

Church  has  practically  abandoned  the  form  of  organization 
formerly  adopted,  the  leaving  out  of  the  word  yet  raises  a 
suspicion  of  design  to  misrepresent. 

"Now   therefore   are    ye  no  Now    therefore    ye    are    no 

more  foreigners  and  strangers,  more  strangers  and  foreigners, 

but    fellow-citizens    with     the  but    fellow    citizens    with    the 

saints,  and  are  built  upon  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of 

foundation  of  the  apostles  and  God;  and   are   built. upon    the 

prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 

being  the  chief  corner-stone."  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself 

— Doctrines    and    Dogmas,   p.  being  the  chief  corner  stone. 

124.  — Eph.  2:  19,  20. 

"Some  have   supposed    that          Some    have    supposed    that 
they  received  two  ordinations;       they  received  two  ordinations; 
one  under  the  hands  of  Peter,       one  under  the  hands  of  Peter, 
James  and  John,   and  one  by       James,  and  John,  and  one  by 
each  other;    but  .   .  .   there  is       each   other;    but  -it  is  scarcely 
no  historical  evidence  of  such       supposable  that  they  would  fail  to 
an   event."     (Ibid,  page  64). — •      mention   so   important   an  item. 
Doctrines  and  Dogmas,  p.  134.       There    is    no    historical     evi- 
dence   of    such     an     event. — 
Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  64. 

Though  Elder  Bays  here  indicates  the  ellipsis,  he  uses 
the  conjunction  but  to  connect  what  in  the  original  is  a 
separate  sentence,  thus  making  it  to  appear  in  different 
connection  from  that  in  which  it  appears  in  the  original. 
This  abuse  of  the  ellipsis  is  quite  frequent  in  "Doctrines 
and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism,"  and  we  here  caution  the 
reader  that  where  he  finds  the  ellipsis  indicated  in  said 
work  it  would  be  well  to  look  up  the  original  before  using 
the  quotation,  or  he  may  find  himself  in  an  embarrassing 
position.  As  instances  we  cite  the  reader  to  pages  33,  272, 
273,  394,  398,  399,  401,  402,  411.  Again,  you  will  find 
places  frequently  where  an  actual  ellipsis  occurs  that  is 
not  indicated.  See  pages  155,  319,  402. 

Resuming  quotations,  we  record  the  following: 

"God  has  committed  the  The  admission  that  God  has 
priesthood  as  a  means  of  at  any  time  committed  the 
authorizing  men  to  minister."  priesthood  as  a  means  of 


18 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 


(Page  3.)— Doctrines  and  Dog- 
mas, p.  145. 


"The  Gospel  is  administered 
by  the  authority  of  the  Mel- 
chizedek  priesthood. "(PageS.) 

But  M&.  Kelley  does  not  in- 
form us  where  he  finds  au- 
thority for  this  remarkable 
statement."  —  Doctrines  and 
Dogmas,  p.  146. 

"Behold,  there  shall  be  a 
record  kept  among  you,  and 
in  it  thou  shalt  be  called  a 
seer,  a  translator,  a  prophet, 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  an 
elder  of  the  church  through 
the  will  of  God  the  Father, 
and  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Wherefore, 
meaning  the  church,  thou 
shalt  give  heed  to  all  his  words, 
and  commandments,  which 
he  shall  give  unto  you,  as  he 
receiveth  them,  walking  in 
all  holiness  before  me;  for  his 
word  ye  shall  receive,  as  if  from 
mine  own  mouth,  in  all  patience 
andfaith."  (Doc.  and  Cov.,  sec. 
19,  par.  1,  ?.  pasre  10:.'.)  Doc- 
trines and  Dogmas,  pp.  319, 
320. 


authorizing  men  to  adminis- 
ter before  him  acceptably, 
must  be  taken  as  positive 
evidence  of  its  necessity. — 
Presidency  and  Priesthood, 
p.  3. 

'•'The  royal  laic,"  the  "perfect 
law  of  liberty,"  the  gospel,  is 
administered  by  the  authority 
of  the  Melchisedec  priesthood. 
— Presidency  and  Priesthood, 
p.  5. 


Behold,  there  shall  be  a 
record  kept  among  you,  and 
in  it  thou  shalt  be  called  a 
seer,  a  translator,  a  prophet, 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  an 
elder  of  the  church  through 
the  will  of  God  the  Father. 
and  the  grace  of  your  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  being  inspired  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion thereof,  and  to  build  it  up 
unto  the  most  holy  faith;  ichich 
church  was  organized  and  estab- 
lished, in  the  year  of  your  Lord 
eighteen  hundred  and  thirty,  in 
the  fourth  month,  and  on  the 
sixth  day  of  the  month,  which  is 
called  April. 

Wherefore,  meaning  the 
church,  thou  shalt  give  heed 
unto  all  his  words,  and  com- 
mandments, which  he  shall 
give  unto  you,  as  he  receiveth 
them,  walking  in  all  holiness 
before  me;  for  his  word  ye 
shall  receive,  as  if  from  mine 
own  mouth,  in  all  patience 
and  faith.  —  Doctrine  and 
Covenants  19: 1,  2. 

These  instances  will  serve  as  examples  of  the  kind  of 
work  Elder  Bays  has  done  in  the  book  in  which  he  claims 
"the  writer  has  endeavored  to  fairly  state  each  proposition 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  19 

discussed,  and  treat  them  with  that  degree  of  candor  due 
to  the  sincerity  of  thousands  who  honestly  believe  them 
divine."  Nor  are  the  above  instances  exceptions  to  the 
general  rule.  Elder  Bays  has  either  through  design  or 
intent  garbled  a  majority  of  the  quotations  made,  and  the 
above  are  given  to  direct  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
matter  that  he  may  examine  for  himself. 
HISTORY. 

When  we  consider  the  opportunities  of  Elder  Bays  to 
know,  the  following  mistakes  in  history  are  not  easily 
excused. 

On  page  25  Bays  says: 

All  Mormon  history  and  biography  agree  in  connecting 
Oliver  Cowdery,  a  man  the  equal  of  Sidney  Kig-clon  in  point 
of  scholastic  attainments  and  personal  polish,  directly  with 
Joseph  Smith  in  every  stage  of  the  development  of  Mormonism. 

Now  "Mormon  history  and  biography  agree"  to  no  such 
thing.  The  history  is  as  follows: 

It  was  early  in  the  spring  of  1820  that  Joseph  Smith  saw 
his  first  vision  that  led  to  the  final  movement  to  organize 
the  church. 

In  September,  1823,  he  saw  the  second  vision,  when  he 
was  informed  of  the  existence  of  the  plates  and  promised 
the  possession  of  the  same  on  condition  of  faithfulness. 

The  plates  were  obtained  according  to  promise,  on  Sep- 
tember 22,  1827,  and  sometime  in  the  month  of  February 
following  Martin  Harris  started  with  copies  of  the  charac- 
ters to  New  York,  where  he  showed  them  to  Dr.  Mitchill 
and  Prof.  Anthon. 

April  12,  1828,  Joseph  Smith  began  the  translation  of 
the  plates  with  Martin  Harris  as  scribe. 

A  year  later  (April,  1829)  Joseph  Smith  and  Oliver  Cow- 
dery met  for  the  first  time;  and  to  this  "all  Mormon  his- 
tory and  biography  agree." 

Not  for  nine  years  after  its  inception  did  Cowdery  know 


20  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

anything  about  this  work,  and  during  these  nine  years 
Joseph  Smith  received  his  visions  and  revelations  directing 
him  to  do  the  work  he  afterwards  did  do,  received  the 
plates,  sent  copies  of  the  characters  to  linguists,  and 
began  the  translation,  and  yet  Elder  Bays  says  that  all 
Mormon  history  and  biography  agree  in  connecting  Covv- 
dery  with  Joseph  Smith  in  every  stage  of  the  development 
of  Mormonism.  It  might  be  added  that  Cowdery  was  not 
directly  connected  with  Joseph  Smith  after  1838,  though 
Joseph  Smith  lived  six  years  longer.  If  Bays  does  not 
know  these  facts  he  has  not  improved  upon  his  opportuni- 
ties to  know,  and  is  not  a  competent  historian. 

In  speaking  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  Elder  Bays  says: 

It  describes  the  wanderings  of  the  little  band  through  the 
wilderness  on  foot  till  they  reached  the  borders  of  the  Red  Sea, 
and  their  sojourn  upon  the  banks  of  a  lar^e  stream,  which 
/,W*  -i/ifu  f/tf>  Red  Sea.  From  this  point  they  traveled  in  a 
south-southeasterly  direction,  till  finally  they  came  to  the  sea 
culled  "I rean  turn." — Page  27. 

He  thus  represents  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  saying  that 
the  course  of  the  colony  was  not  changed  until  it  reached 
the  sea  of  Irreantum. 

On  page  42  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  (I  use  the  Palmyra 
edition,  as  that  is  the  one  used  by  Bays)  we  find  the  follow- 
ing: 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  we  did  agrain  take  our  journey  in 
the  wilderness;  and  we  did  travel  nearly  eastward,  from  that 
time  forth. 

It  may  be  that  Bays  overlooked  this,  and  we  do  not  refer 
to  it  as  an  evidence  of  dishonesty,  but  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  refer  to  some  things  of  this  nature  because  Bays 
claims  to  be,  and  is  recognized  by  many  to  be,  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  subject  he  writes  upon.  We  only 
wish  that  it  were  possible  to  admit,  what  we  admit  in  this 
case,  regarding  all  his  blunders,  namely,  that  through 
ignorance  he  did  it. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  21 

Again,  Bays  says: 

But  you  may  ask,  How  is  it  possible  at  this  late  daj7"  to  deter- 
mine this  difficult  question  of  Aaronic  lineage? 

To  ordinary  mortals  this  would,  I  confess,  prove  an  insur- 
mountable barrier;  but  Joseph  was  a  man  of  resources,  and  this 
matter  of  lineal  descent  was  a  trifling1  affair.  You  must  bear  in 
mind  the  fact  that  Joseph  was  in  possession  of  that  magical 
"Urim  and  Thummim,"  by  means  of  which  he  had  access  to  the 
fountains  of  all  knowledge.  Appealing  to  this,  the  question 
was  soon  settled.  A  PATRIARCH  must  be  appointed  whose  duty 
and  privilege  it  shall  be  to  determine  the  lineage,  not  only  of 
the  man  whose  privilege  it  is  to  "hold  the  ke3rs  of  this  priest- 
hood," but  of  any  and  every  man  who  may  be  curious  to  know 
from  just  which  of  the  twelve  patriarchs  of  old  he  might  be 
descended. — Page  30. 

The  law  of  the  church  places  this  duty  upon  the  First 
Presidency  and  not  upon  the  Patriarch,  as  the  following 
will  show: 

No  man  has  a  legal  right  to  this  office,  to  hold  the  keys  of  this 
priesthood,  except  he  be  a  literal  descendant  and  the  firstborn 
of  Aaron;  but  as  a  high  priest  of  the  Melchisedec  priesthood 
has  authority  to  officiate  in  all  the  lesser  offices,  he  may  officiate 
in  the  office  of  bishop  when  no  literal  descendant  of  Aaron  can 
be  found;  provided,  he  is  called  and  set  apart,  and  ordained 
unto  this  power  under  the  hands  of  the  first  presidency  of  the 
Melchisedec  priesthood.  And  a  literal  descendant  of  Aaron, 
also,  must  be  designated  by  this  presidency,  and  found  worthy, 
etc. — Doctrine  arid  Covenants  08:2. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  mistake  in  the  above  passage. 
There  never  has  been  a  claim  made  by  the  church  or  by 
Joseph  Smith  that  the  above  question  was  settled  by  an 
appeal  to  the  Urim  and  T/tiimmim.  We  would  like  to 
excuse  Mr.  Bays  in  this  case,  but  there  is  no  excuse  for 
such  glaring  misrepresentations. 

Bays  testifies  as  follows: 

While  in  charge  of  the  Southwestern  Mission,  including 
Texas,  western  Louisiana,  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  1  kept  a 
record  of  all  administrations  to  the  sick,  noting  time,  place, 
the  name  of  patient,  the  nature  of  the  malady,  by  whom 
assisted,  and  the  results.  At  the  close  of  the  year  I  found 
myself  unable  to  report  a  single  instance  of  healing  in  the 
entire  mission.  This  was  in  1878-9. — Page  66. 


22  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

An  examination  of  the  record  shows  that  Elder  Bays  was 
not  at  the  time  mentioned  in  charge  of  all  the  territory 
claimed,  nor  have  we  found  any  record  that  he  was  at  any 
other  time  in  charge  of,  or  ever  labored  in,  Arizona  or 
New  Mexico. 

At  that  time  there  were  two  General  Conferences  held 
each  year,  called  the  Annual  and  Semiannual.  At  the 
Annual  Conference  of  1878  the  appointment  read  as 
follows: 

D.  H.  Bays  and  Ralph  Jenkins,  to  Texas  and  Indian  Terri- 
tory.— Saints'  Herald,  vol.  25,  page  141. 

The  minutes  of  the  Semiannual  Conference  for  the  same 
year  contain  the  following: 

I).  H.  Bays  was  sustained  in  the  Texas  Mission,  and  W.  T. 
Bozarth  was  associated  with  him;  also  Ralph  Jenkins  and  J.  W. 
Bryan  continued  in  the  same. — Ibid.,  p.  295. 

The  minutes  of  the  annual  conference  for  1879  disclose 
the  following: 

D.  H.  Bays,  Texas  Mission.— Ibid.,  vol.  26,  p.  141. 

The  minutes  of  the  Semiannual  Conference  for  1879  have 
this  entry: 

Davis  H.  Bays,  released,  subject  to  inquiry  by  First  Presi- 
dency.—Ibid.,  p.  333. 

Is  this  a  lapse  of  memory  or  a  willful  misrepresentation? 
In  either  case  it  makes  him  an  unreliable  witness. 

While  still  on  the  subject  of  miraculous  power,  Elder 
Bays  says: 

With  'forty  years  of  acquaintance  with  Mormonism  in  its 
various  phases,  common  honesty  impels  me  to  say  I  have  never 
known  a  single  instance  of  miraculous  power.  I  have  wit- 
nessed, it  is  true,  what  I  was  at  the  time  willing  to  call  a  mira- 
cle, because,  like  all  others  who  believe  in  such  things,  I 
wished  to  have  it  so;  but  never  have  I  witnessed  anything 
which  would  bear  the  test  of  intelligent  scrutiny,  or  be  con- 
firmed by  candid,  sober  second  thought.  — Page  74. 

In  this  connection  it  might  be  well  to  refresh  Elder 
Bays'  memory  with  the  following  testimonies  from  his  own 
pen: 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  23 

We  then  repaired  to  the  water.  A  deep  feeling  of  solemnity 
pervaded  the  assembly  while  nine  precious  souls  were  buried 
with  our  precious  Lord  in  baptism.  The  invitation  was 
extended  to  others,  when  Bro.  Thompson  stepped  forward  and 
addressed  the  audience  in  a  solemn  and  impressive  manner, 
sayinsr:  "The  systems  of  men  generally  teach  a  'form  of  godli- 
ness' but  deny  the  'power  thereof,'  and  I  have  been  preaching 
the  'power'  without  the  'form.'  But  now,  thank  God,  we 
have  presented  to  us  both  the  form  and  the  power;  and  I  feel  it 
to  be  my  duty  to  walk  in  the  light  as  I  now  behold  it,  and  to 
put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God."  Then  he  came  forth  and  was 
baptized.  Almost  the  entire  audience,  which  was  large,  was 
in  tears.  Even  people  who  had  not  obeyed  the  gospel  message, 
received  great  confirmation,  some  of  them  testifying  boldly 
that  they  saw  a  glorious  and  heavenly  light  at  thevclose  of  the 
baptismal  service.  It  was  certainly  a  remarkable  display  of 
God's  power;  praise  his  great  and  holy  name! 

Next  day,  Tuesday  25th,  we  met  under  the  arbor  again  at  11 
o'clock  a.  m.  for  preaching  and  confirmation  services,  in  which 
the  Spirit  was  present  in  a  remarkable  degree  of  power,  espe- 
cially in  the  confirmation  ceremonies. — Extract  from  a  letter 
written  from  Stockdale,  Wilson  county,  Texas,  June  30,  1878, 
and  published  in  the  Saints'  Herald  for  July  15  of  the  same 
year. 

It  might  be  interesting  to  hear  Elder  Bays  put  this  to 
"intelligent  scrutiny"  "confirmed  by  candid,  sober  second 
thought." 

When  he  has  disposed  of  that  let  him  try  the  following: 

In  all  my  life  I  have  never  known  the  truth  to  be  put  to  a  test 
at  once  so  trying  and  fiery  as  the  one  just  referred  to.  But  I 
kneic  the  Lord  would  give  us  the  victory,  so  we  awaited 
patiently  till  the  ordeal  was  past,  when  his  mercy  appeared. 
The  discussion  terminated  favorably  to  the  cause  of  truth. — 
Extract  from  a  letter  written  from  Stockdale,  Texas,  July  10, 
1878,  and  published  in  the  Saints'  Herald  for  September  1  of  the 
same  year. 

This  was  written  concerning  a  discussion  Mr.  Bays  had 
just  closed  with  a  Mr.  Washburn,  of  the  Baptist  Church. 
In  the  absence  of  revelation  from  God,  how  did  Elder  Bays 
know  what  the  Lord  was  going  to  do  regarding  this  dis- 
cussion? He  could  not  have  known  anything  about  it.  If 
we  are  to  believe  his  testimony  now,  will  Mr.  Bays  please 
arise  and  explain  why  he  testified  falsely  on  July  10,  1878? 


34  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

Mr.  Bays  makes  another  mistake  when  in  referring  to 
the  organization  of  James  J.  Strang  he  says: 

Although  claiming  to  be  the  legal  successor  to  Joseph  Smith, 
as  "prophet,  seer,  and  revelator,"  he  skillfully  avoided  the 
triumvirate  known  as  the  "First  Presidency,"  and  assumed 
the  modest  title  of  king. — Page  75. 

In  a  periodical  called  the  Gospel  Herald,  published  at 
Voree,  Wisconsin,  as  the  official  organ  of  James  J.  Strang, 
and  in  its  issue  for  August  16,  1849,  there  is  a  notice  of 
several  conferences,  from  which  we  quote  as  follows: 

There  will  be  a  Conference  held  in  the  city  of  New  York  the 
5th,  Gth  and  7th  of  October  next.  It  is  expected  that  a  majority 
of  both  the  First  Presidency  and  the  Twelve  will  attend  these 
Conferences.  JAMES  J.  STRANG,  \  ^  .  , 

GEORGE  J.  ADAMS,    f  Presidents. 

This  notice  is  also  inserted  in  the  next  six  issues  follow- 
ing the  one  referred  to. 

Bays  claims  to  have  been  for  a  time  identified  with  the 
organization  under  Strang.  Yet  he  does  not  seem  to  know 
what  that  organization  was. 

Eeader,  no  matter  what  your  opinion  is  regarding 
"Mormonism,"  be  careful  how  you  depend  on  Bays  for 
information;  he  will  surely  get  you  into  trouble. 

On  page  160  Bays  says: 

Who  were  present  at  the  Kirtland  endowment?  Latter  Day 
Raints  only,  so  far  as  the  history  informs  us. 

The  following  shows  plainly  that  there  were  others 
beside  the  members  present: 

We  further  add  that  we  should  do  violence  to  our  own  feel- 
ings and  injustice  to  the  real  merit  of  our  brethren  and  friends 
who  attended  the  meeting,  were  we  here  to  withhold  a  meed  of 
praise,  which  we  think  is  their  just  due,  not  only  for  their 
quiet  demeanor  during  the  whole  exercise,  which  lasted  more 
than  eight  hours,  but  for  their  great  liberality  in  contributing 
of  their  earthly  substance  for  the  relief  of  tne  building  com- 
mittee, who  were  yet  somewhat  involved.  — Church  History, 
vol.  2,  p.  45. 

In  the  very  next  sentence  after  the  one  quoted  above  he 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  25 

makes  another  historical  mistake  and  emphasizes  it  as  fol- 
lows: 

Who  understood  the  "tongues"  in  which  not  one  of  the  apostles 
is  declared  to  have  spokenf  Not  a  soul,  for  they  were  all  English- 
speaking'  people. 

The  following  will  show  his  error: 

President  S:  Rigdon  then  made  a  few  appropriate  closing 
remarks,  and  a  short  prayer,  which  was  ended  with  loud  accla- 
mations of  Hosanna!  Hosanna!  Hosanna  to  God  and  the  Lamb, 
Amen,  Amen  and  Amen!  three  times.  Elder  H.  Young,  one  of 
the  Twelve,  gave  a  short  address  in  tongues;  Elder  D.  \V.  Pat- 
ten interpreted  and  gave  a  short  exhortation  in  tongues  him- 
self; etc.  — Ibid.,  p.  45. 

It  is  only  necessary  here  to  say  that  Patten,  as  well  as 
Young,  was  a  member  of  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve.  We 
insist  that  whether  Elder  Bays  makes  these  false  historical 
statements  ignorantly,  or  with  design  to  deceive,  his  book 
is  not  one  of  "reference,  accurate  and  reliable, "as  asserted 
by  the  Christian  Publishing  House. 

In  speaking  of  Jason  W.  Briggs,  Bays  says: 

Jason  became  dissatisfied  with  his  own  work;  and  by  his 
actions,  at  least,  renouncing  his  own  "revelation"  and  the  work 
built  upjn  it,  he  resigned  his  apostolic  office  and  withdrew  from 
the  church  at  a  conference  held  at  Independence,  Mo. — Page  102. 

Elder  Briggs  did  not  withdraw  from  the  church  at  Inde- 
pendence, Missouri,  but  at  Lamoni,  Iowa,  in  1886,  and 
then  not  because  he  was  "dissatisfied  with  his  own  work," 
or  because  he  "renounced  his  own  revelation."  Let  Elder 
Briggs  speak  for  himself.  When  on  the  witness  stand  in 
the  famous  Temple  Lot  suit  he  was  questioned  regarding 
his  reasons  for  withdrawing  from  the  church;  he  said: 

It  was  simply  a  matter  of  discussion  through  the  columns  of 
the  Herald  that  caused  my  withdrawal.  It  was  through  a  dis- 
cussion which  arose,  and  was  attempted  to  be  carried  on 
throuirh  the  columns  of  the  Herald;  but  while  the  other  party 
was  allowed  access  to  the  columns  of  the  Herald,  I  was  denied 
that  privilege. — Plaintiff's  Abstract,  p.  400. 

Not  one  word  can  be  produced  from  the  pen  of  Elder 
Briggs  to  show  that  he  "became  dissatisfied  with  his  own 


26  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

work''  in  connection  with  the  Reorganization,  or  that  he 
"renounced  his  own  revelation."  Mr.  Bays  therefore 
stands  convicted  of  willful  misrepresentation. 

On  the  very  next  page  he  proceeds  to  misrepresent 
another  of  the  church's  early  defenders  as  follows: 

Elder  Charles  Derry  did  not  long  remain  in  the  "Quorum  of 
Twelve."  He  resigned  his  apostleship  soon  after  his  return 
from  the  English  Mission,  for  the  reason,  as  he  told  the  writer 
shortly  afterwards,  that  he  had  no  evidence  that  God  had  ever 
called  him  to  be  an  apostle.  He  was  too  honest  to  retain  a 
place  of  honor  to  which  he  felt  assured  God  had  never  called 
him.  He  called  on  me  a  few  days  ago,  and  on  departing  left 
his  benediction.  He  baptized  me  into  the  Reorganized  Church 
nearly  thirty-six  years  ago.  I  would  that  all  men  were  like 
him  in  honor  and  integrity,  and  may  his  soul  find  rest  and 
peace  in  the  paradise  of  God. 

Elder  Derry  left  home  on  his  English  mission  December 
6,  1862,  and  landed  in  Liverpool,  England,  February  4, 
1863.  Returning,  he  reached  home  September  6,  1861.  In 
April,  1865,  he  was  ordained  an  apostle,  which  office  he 
held  until  April,  1870.  Mr.  Bays  has  him  resigning  soon 
after  he  returned  from  his  English  mission,  which  would 
have  been  before  his  ordination.  " Accurate  and  reliable," 
bah! 

However,  Elder  Derry  still  lives  and  resides  at  Wood- 
bine, Iowa.  From  a  long  and  intimate  acquaintance  with 
Elder  Derry  we  can  heartily  agree  with  Elder  Bays  in  the 
wish  (;that  all  men  were  like  him  in  honor  and  integrity." 
Bearing  in  mind  the  character  of  the  witness,  let  us  hear 
from  him  on  the  question  of  fact  raised  by  Bays.  When 
contemplating  writing  this  review  we  wrote  him  regarding 
Bays'  statement  and  he  answered  as  follows: 

WOODBINE,  January  16,  1901. 

Elder  Heman  C.  Smith:— Your  favor  of  yesterday  is  before 
me.  culling  for  information  respecting  my  purported  statement 
to  1).  H.  Bays  about  my  resignation  of  my  membership  in  the 
Quorum  of  the  Twelve.  Soon  after  Bays  published  his  book  I 
borrowed  a  copy,  and  after  a  close  examination  of  it,  I  wrote 
several  hundred  pages  in  reply.  .  .  . 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   HAYS.  27 

I  now  copy  from  my  reply  to  Bays  on  that  question  as  follows, 
which  you  are  at  liberty  to  use. 

"While  dwelling  on  the  question  of  apostleship  I  will  crave 
pardon  of  the  reader  for  referring  to  a  personal  matter,  and 
especially  as  that  person  is  the  writer  of  this  review.  Mr.  Hays 
mentions  the  fact  of  my  being  called  to  the  apostleship.  I  will 
here  remark  that  the  same  order  was  carried  out  in  this  case  as 
had  been  from  the  beginning,  it  being  the  duty  of  the  commit- 
tee on  selection  to  se-ek  the  guidance  of  the  Almighty,  as  Jesus 
sought  it  in  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve  in  his  day.  In  due 
time  my  name  was  presented  in  connection  with  that  of  Brother 
Ells,  and  it  was  duly  considered  by  the  conference,  and  I  was 
chosen  by  the  voice  of  the  body.  1  can  only  say  for  myself  that 
my  heart  was  set  to  do  the  will  of  God,  and  I  had  given  myself 
up  to  God's  ministry  many  years  before,  and  that,  too,  without 
knowing  then  that  my  mother  had  dedicated  me  to  the  service 
of  God,  in  my  infancy,  as  Hannah  of  old  had  dedicated  little 
Samuel.  On  the  8th  of  April,  1865,  I  accepted  the  call  to  the 
apostleship,  believing  that  the  call  was  from  God.  I  served  in 
that  capacity  about  five  years,  but  doubts  of  the  divinity  of  my 
calling  to  that  particular  office  crept  into  my  mind;  it  seemed 
to  me  I  was  not  fitted  for  so  responsible  a  duty,  and  I  only 
wanted  to  occupy  according  to  my  talents.  I  was  blessed  in  my 
ministry,  but  I  had  always  been  blessed  in  preaching  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  and  the  fear  kept  pressing  itself  into  my  heart  that 
the  duty  of  the  apostleship  was  greater  than  I  could  faithfully 
and  effectually  perform,  and  while  it  was  my  life's  determina- 
tion to  continue  in  the  gospel  ministry,  I  determined  to  resign 
my  position  in  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve,  and  if  it  was  God's 
will,  I  would  occupy  a  humbler  position  in  his  c'hurch.  I 
resigned,  but  not  as  Mr.  Bays  says,  'soon  after  his  return  from 
the  English  Mission.'  I  had  not  been  called  into  that  Quorum 
until  some  time  after  I  returned  from  the  English  mission,  and 
as  above  stated,  I  remained  in  that  Quorum  about  five  }Tears.  It 
is  very  likely  I  told  Mr.  Bays  (though  I  do  not  remember  the 
interview)  that  I  had  no  evidence  that  God  had  called  me  to 
that  office.  I  told  all  my  brethren  so  when  I  resigned, .  but 
I  never  told  Mr.  Bays,  nor  any  other  being,  that  I  knew  God  had 
not  called  me  to  it.  One  thing  I  did  realize,  and  realize  it 
today,  that  God  had  called  me  to  preach  his  gospel,  as  preached 
by  Christ,  and  as  restored  again  in  these  last  days,  and  I  know 
that  in  all  of  my  labors  and  travels  by  land  and  sea,  God  has 
been  with  me,  and  used  me  as  an  instrument,  in  his  hands,  in 
blessing  my  fellow  man;  and  with  that  my  soul  is  satisfied.  I 
have  always  been  satisfied  that  the  church  as  a  body  and  the 
brethren  individually,  acted  in  good  faith.  The  church  has 
never  claimed  infallibility  for  itself  or  any  of  its  officers.  God, 
Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  word  of  God  are  the  only  beings 


28  REPLY  TO  D.   H.  BAYS. 

for  whom,  as  a  church,  we  claim  infallibility.  If  I  erred  in 
resigning  my  place  in  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve,  it  was  done 
in  the  integrity  of  my  heart,  and  I  am  in  the  hands  of  a  just 
Judire. " 

With  respect  to  my  visit  to  Bays  in  Persia.  At  his  request  I 
visited  him.  We  had  a  friendly  talk,  as  old-time  friends.  Doc- 
trine was  not  mentioned  by  either  of  us.  An  outsider  would 
have  thought  from  his  friendly  reference  to  the  brethren  of  the 
church  that  he  was  still  with  us.  I,  however,  knew  he  was  not, 
in  spirit,  whatever  miirht  be  his  bland,  outward  appearance, 
but  I  had  no  hatred  against  the  man,  and  why  should  I  refrain 
from  wishing  him  well.  I  still  wish  him  well,  and  that  he  may 
live  long  enough  to  repent  of  his  errors,  and  come  out  as  a  true 
man  for  Christ  and  the  true  gospel. 

CHARLES  DERRY. 

Between  Elder  Bays  and  this*  man  of  "honor  and  integ- 
rity" we  leave  the  reader  to  judge. 

On  page  234,  while  examining  the  testimony  concerning 
the  visit  of  Martin  Harris  to  Professor  Anthon,  Mr.  Bays 
says: 

The  best  evidence,  and,  in  fact,  the  only  evidence,  of  which 
this  case  is  susceptible,  would  be  the  solemn  affirmation,  or 
what  would  be  still  better,  perhaps,  the  sworn  statement  of  Mr. 
Harris.  But  no  such  statement  or  affirmation  was  ever  obtained 
from  him.  Not  a  scrap  of  anything  Martin  Harris  ever  wrote  — 
if  he  ever  wrote  anything  on  the  subject— can  be  adduced  in 
support  of  this  claim  concerning  his  interview  with  Prof. 
Anthon. 

In  the  Church  History,  volume  1,  pages  50  and  51,  which 
Elder  Bays  doubtless  had  before  him  when  he  wrote,  as  he 
quotes  from  it  frequently,  the  following  quotation  from  a 
letter  written  by  Martin  Harris  appears: 

SMITHFIELD,  Utah,  Nov.  23,  1870. 

Mr.  Emerson;  Sir: — I  received  jrour  favor.  In  reply  I  will  say 
concerning  the  plates:  I  do  say  that  the  angel  did  show  to  me 
the  plates  containing  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Further,  the  trans- 
lation that  I  carried  to  Prof.  Anthon  was  copied  from  these 
same  plates;  also,  that  the  Professor  did  testify  to  it  being  a 
correct  translation.  .  .  . 

How  Mr.  Bays  could  make  the  statement  he  did  above 
with  this  before  him  we  will  leave  him  and  his  indorsers 
to  explain. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  29 

In  the  following  extracts  from  Bays'  book,  page  219,  he 
exaggerates  the  facts,  as  the  evidence  plainly  shows: 

It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  these  witnesses,  and  especially 
Oliver  Cowdery,  knowing  that  the  church  organized  by  Joseph 
and  Oliver,  if  their  testimony  is  true,  must  be  the  only  Church 
of  Christ  on  earth,  would  deliberately  withdraw  from  it,  and 
live  and  die  without  its  protecting  fold?  And  yet  this  is 
exactly  what  the}7"  did. 

If  I  had  seen  an  angel;  if  I  had  heard  the  voice  of  God;  if  I 
had  bowed  by  Joseph's  Smith's  side  and  felt  the  touch  of  angel 
hands  in  ordination,-  and  heard  the  declaration  that  he  was  a 
prophet  of  the  living  God,  all  the  combined  powers  of  earth  and 
hell  could  never  have  induced  me  to  forsake  him.  And  yet 
this  is  exactly  what  Oliver  Cowdery  did. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  these  witnesses  did  withdraw 
from  fellowship  with  the  church  on  account  of  disagree- 
ment with  others  on  church  policy,  but  this  only  shows 
that  they  were  men  who  acted  upon  their  convictions  and 
were  not  under  the  dictation  of  Joseph  Smith  or  anyone 
else. 

This  act,  in  the  absence  of  any  proof  against  their  char- 
acter, only  shows  them  to  be  the  more  reliable  as  wit- 
nesses. If  Mr.  Bays  had  been  actuated  by  a  sense  of 
fairness  he  would  have  stated,  what  he  seemingly  desires 
to  conceal;  viz.,  that  the  faith  of  these  men  was  never 
impaired  in  the  principles  they  had  espoused,  notwith- 
standing this  disagreement  and  consequent  separation.  At 
a  special  conference  held  at  Council  Bluffs,  Iowa,  in  Octo- 
ber, 1848,  Oliver  Cowdery  said: 

Not  because  I  was  better  than  the  rest  of  mankind  was  I 
called;  but,  to  fulfill  the  purposes  of  God,  he  called  me  to  a 
high  and  holy  calling.  I  wrote,  with  my  own  pen,  the  entire 
Book  of  Mormon  (save  a  few  pages),  as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  as  he  translated  it  by  the  gift  and 
power  of  God,  by  the  means  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  or,  as 
it  is  called  by  that  book,  'holy  interpreters.'  .1  beheld  with  my 
ci/ex  and  handled  with  my  hands  the  gold  plates  from  ichich  it  was 
Iranxlated.  I  also  saw  with  my  eyes  and.  handled  with  my  hands 
the  'holy  interpreters.'  That  book  is  true.  Sidney  Rigdon  did 
not  write  it.  Mr.  Spalding  did  not  write  it.  I  wrote  it  myself 


30  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

as  it  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Prophet.— Church  History,  vol.  1, 
p.  50. 

In  a  communication  written  by  Martin  Harris  from 
Smithfield,  Utah,  January,  1871,  to  H.  Emerson  in  answer 
to  the  question,  "Did  you  go  to  England  to  lecture  against 
Mormonism?"  he  said: 

I  answer  emphatically,  No,  I  did  not;— no  man  ever  heard  me 
in  any  way  deny  the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  the  admin- 
istration of  the  angel  that  showed  me  the  plates;  nor  the 
organization  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints,  under  the  administration  of  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  the 
prophet  whom  the  Lord  raised  up  for  that  purpose,  in  these  the 
latter  days,  that  he  may  show  forth  his  power  and  glory.  .  .  . — 
Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  51. 

In  a  proclamation  published  in  1881,  David  Whitmer  said: 

To  the  end,  therefore,  .  .  .  that  the  world  may  know  the 
truth,  I  wish  now,  standing  as  it  were,  in  the  very  sunset  of 
life,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  once  for  all  to  make  this  public 
statement: 

That  I  have  never  at  any  time  denied  that  testimony  or  any 
part  thereof,  which  has  so  long  since  been  published  with  that 
book,  as  one  of  the  three  witnesses.  Those  who  know  me  best, 
well  know  that  I  have  always  adhered  to  that  testimony.  And 
that  no  man  may  be  misfed  or  doubt  my  present  views  in 
regard  to  the  same,  I  do  again  affirm  the  truth  of  all  of  my 
statements,  as  then  made  and  published.— Church  History,  vol. 
1,  p.  55. 

Comment  is  unnecessary.  The  reader  will  readily  see 
that  the  statements  of  Elder  Bays  as  quoted  above  are 
misleading,  regarding  the  attitude  of  these  men.  Though 
his  statements  are  partially  true,  he  states  only  a  part  of 
the  truth  and  gives  to  it  a  false  coloring,  which  is  one  of 
the  most  deceptive  ways  of  writing  that  has  ever  been 
resorted  to. 

This  is  certainly  inexcusable  in  one  who  has  had  the 
opportunities  to  know  the  truth  that  Elder  Bays  has  had. 

But  Mr.  Bays  continues: 

I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  state  that  I,  too,  visited  David  Whit- 
mer and  talked  with  him  on  the  same  subject  many  years 
before  either  of  the  above  named  gentlemen  had  seen  him. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.    BAYS.  31 

During  cne  interview  I  made  special  inquiry  concerning  Oliver 
Cowdery,  as  I  had  been  informed  that  he  died  an  infidel.  This 
he  informed  me  was  incorrect.—  Page  249. 

Elder  Bays  published  at  the  time  an  account  of  the  visit 
above  referred  to,  which  we  give  in  his  own  words,  with- 
out comment: 

Monday,  13th.  I  visited  Richmond,  the  county  seat  of  Ray, 
where,  to  my  surprise,  I  found  Bro.  David  Whitmer,  one  of  the 
"three  witnesses."  He  is  now  04  years  old  and  somewhat 
broken.  He  entertains  some  ideas  of  minor  importance,  which 
could  not  be  considered  orthodox;  but  so  far  as  his  faith  in  the 
Latter  Day  Work  is  concerned,  he  remains  as  firm  as  the  ever- 
lasting hills.  — From  a  letter  written  to  Elder  M.  H.  Forscutt 
from  Lafayette,  Kansas,  September  17,  1869,  and  published  in 
the  Saints'  Herald  for  November  1,  1809. 

On  page  267  of  his  book  Mr.  Bays  says  when  speaking  of 
Joseph  Smith  and  the  three  witnesses;  viz.,  Oliver  Cow- 
dery, David  Whitmer,  and  Martin  Harris: 

These  witnesses  say  that  the  plates  contained  "Egyptian, 
Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic"  characters. 

This  is  a  misrepresentation,  as  not  one  of  the  witnesses 
ever  claimed  to  know  of  what  language  the  characters 
were.  Martin  Harris  quotes  Professor  Anthon  as  saying 
that  the  facsimile  presented  to  the  Professor  contained 
such  characters,  but  he  nowhere  claims  to  know  anything 
about  it  from  his  own  knowledge  of  characters. 

When  Mr.  Bays  wrote  as  he  says  he  did  to  certain  lin- 
guists the  following,  he  misrepresented  the  facts: 

"DEAR  SIR:  I  herewith  inclose  what  purports  to  be  a  fac- 
simile of  the  characters  found  upon  the  gold  plates  from  which 
it  is  claimed  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  translated.  The  advo- 
cates of  Mormonism  maintain  that  these  characters  are  'Egyp- 
tian, Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic.'  " — Page  2(51. 

"The  advocates  of  Mormonism"  have  maintained  nothing 
of  the  kind. 

All  there  is  to  it  is  that  Martin  Harris  has  been  quoted 
as  saying  that  Professor  Anthon  so  determined  and 
informed  him. 


32  REPLY  TO  D.  H.   BAYS. 

On  page  310,  when  discussing  the  ordinance  of  the  laying 
on  of  hands  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Mr.  Bays 
denies  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  teaches  this  doctrine,  and 
adds: 

Perhaps  some  of  their  wise  men  may  explain  why  a  book 
which  contains  ''the  fullness  of  the  everlasting  Gospel"  is  as 
silent  as  the  grave  upon  a  subject  of  such  grave  importance. 
Why  did  neither  Jesus  nor  his  disciples  teach  it?  and  why  was 
it  never  performed  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Gospel  to  follow  bap- 
tism? Echo  answers,  Why? 

In  answer  to  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  one  pas- 
sage from  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  follows: 

The  words  of  Christ,  which  he  spake  unto  his  disciples,  the 
twelve  whom  he  had  chosen,  as  he  laid  his  hands  upon  them. 
And  he  called  them  by  name,  saying,  Ye  shall  call  on  the 
Father  in  my  name,  in  miirhty  prayer;  and  after  that  ye  have 
done  this,  ye  shall  have  power  that  on  him  on  whom  ye  shall  lay 
your  hands,  ye  shall  give  the  Holy  Ghost:  and  in  my  name  shall 
ye  give  it:  for  thus  do  mine  apostles.  Now  Christ  spake  these 
words  unto  them  at  the  time  of  his  first  appearing;  and  the 
multitude  heard  it  not,  but  the  disciples  heard  it;  and  on  as 
many  as  they  laid  their  hands,  fell  the  Holy  Ghost.  — Book  of 
Moroni,  chapter  2. 

Is  this  not  surprising  for  a  man  who  has  the  opportunity 
to  be  informed  that  Mr.  Bays  has  had?  Mr.  Bays  through- 
out his  whole  treatise  cries,  Fraud,  fraud!  and  yet  is 
guilty  of  such  flagrant  misrepresentations  as  this.  And 
the  Christian  Publishing  House  says  he  is  "accurate  and 
reliable." 

Strange  to  say,  however,  that  after  Mr.  Bays  makes  the 
above  statement  he  quotes  the  above  passage  from  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  states  that  it  "is  the  only  passage 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  in  any  way  relates  to  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  If  this 
is  true  (which  it  is  not),  then  his  statement  that  the 
book  "is  as  silent  as  the  grave"  on  the  subject  is  false. 

When  it  is  convenient  for  Mr.  Bays  to  turn  witness  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  do  so,  and  where  other  testimony  is 


REPLY   TO  D.  H.   BAYS.  33 

lacking  he  comes  to  the  rescue  and   supplies  the   want. 
Here  is  a  specimen: 

The  writer  has  had  ample  opportunity  to  observe  the  prac- 
tical workings  of  the  system  under  the  auspices  of  two  different 
and  widely  separated  Mormon  churches,  namely,  Lyman 
Wight,  in  Texas,  in  1847,  and  James  J.  Strang,  of  Beaver 
Island,  Mich.,  in  1854.— Page  318. 

This  testimony  was  given  with  reference  to  the  system 
of  polygamy.  Davis  H.  Bays  was  born,  on  the  5th  day  of 
March,  1839,  and  hence  was  eight  years  old  in  1847.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  comment  on  the  "ample  opportunity"  of 
a  lad  of  eight  years  to  observe  the  system  of  polygamy. 
Elder  Bays,  however,  is  mistaken.  He  could  have  given 
himself  the  advantage  of  one  more  year,  and  at  the  same 
time  have  saved  his  credit  as  a  witness,  for  he  never  saw 
Lyrnan  Wight  nor  any  of  his  associates  in  1847.  He 
arrived,  with  his  father's  family,  at  a  place  called  Zodiac, 
near  Fredericksburg,  Texas,  where  the  Lyman  Wight 
colony  was  located,  May  9,  1848.  So  Elder  Bays  was  nine 
years  old,  and  of  course  a  boy  nine  years  old  would  have 
ample  opportunities  thrown  in  his  way,  and  would  be 
amply  competent  to  investigate  a  system  clandestinely 
practiced  by  neighbors  1 

Smart  boy,  that! 

On  page  335,  in  an  attempt  to  set  aside  a  statement 
made  by  Bishop  George  Miller  and  others  to  the  effect  that 
polygamy  was  not  known  in  Nauvoo  in  1842,  Mr.  Bays 
says: 

Several  of  the  men  whose  names  appear  in  the  list  of  wit- 
nesses became  noted  advocates  of  polygamy.  George  Miller, 
also  a  general  in  the  Nauvoo  Legion,  and  the  second  man  on 
the  list,  was  a  polygamist  with  two  wives,  when  first  I  knew 
him  in  1847,  but  five  years  after  his  testimony  was  made  public, 
and  only  three  years  after  the  death  of  the  prophet. 

Bishop  George  Miller  arrived  at  Zodiac  on  the  2d  of 
February,  1848,  and  Henry  Bays  and  his  precocious  son 
Davis  arrived  at  the  same  place  on  May  9  following.  This 


34  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

is  the  first  time  he  ever  saw  Bishop  Miller.  So  Bays  did 
not  know  Bishop  Miller  "first  in  1847'';  it  was  not  "but  five 
years  after  his  testimony  was  made  public";  and  it  was  not 
"only  three  years  after  the  death  of  the  prophet."  Now, 
in  all  candor,  is  such  a  witness  reliable?  Bays  was  a 
smart  boy,  that  is  conceded,  but  would  any  boy  nine  years 
old  be  likely  to  know  about  the  two  wives,  and  yet  forget 
the  date  of  the  events?  If  this  is  thought  possible,  there 
is  another  question  which  is  pertinent  here.  Would  a  wit- 
ness who  had  forgotten  the  date  positively  testify  to  a 
date? 

Further,  as  against  the  testimony  that  George  Miller  had 
two  wives  in  1847,  or  1848,  we  submit  a  letter  now  in  our 
possession,  written  by  George  Miller  and  Richard  Hewett 
from  Bastrop,  Texas,  June  14,  1849,  to  J.  J.  Strang,  in 
which  occurs  the  following  in  the  handwriting  of  Hewett: 

I  want  to  know  what  your  mind  is  about  men  having  the 
priesthood  having  more  wives  than  one.  The  principle  is 
taught  amongst  all  that  I  have  been  with.  Some  have  from 
two  to  ten,  or  twenty,  and  some  have  none.  If  it  is  consistent  I 
want  you  to  let  me  know  when  you  write  to  me,  and  I  want  you 
to  write  as  soon  as  you  get  this,  so  Bro.  Miller  and  myself  may 
know  what  to  do.  You  must  excuse  me  for  asking  so  much, 
but  you  must  bear  with  me,  as  I  confess  I  am  ignorant.  Bro. 
Miller  says  their  whoring  will  send  them  all  to  hell. 

Bishop  Miller  writes  a  letter  on  the  same  sheet  of  paper 
and  they  both  speak  of  those  with  whom  they  had  asso- 
ciated after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  after  relating 
their  practices  as  in  the  above  extract  they  want  to  know 
about  this  principle,  that  they  may  know  what  to  do,  car- 
rying the  plain  inference  that  if  this  doctrine  was  sup- 
ported by  Strang  they  would  not  go  there.  As  seen  above 
Bishop  Miller  condemns  it  in  language  more  forcible  than 
elegant,  and  Mr.  Hewett  continues  by  saying: 

I  don't  find  such  things  in  the  Book  of  Covenants,  nor  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  nor  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 

Mr.  Strang  at  this  time  was  not  advocating  polygamy 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  35 

and  probably  wrote  these  men  to  that  effect,  and  this  will 
explain  why  Bishop  Miller  went  to  Strang.  Now  we  do 
not  know  whether  Bishop  Miller  had  more  than  one  wife 
at  this  or  any  other  time;  but  shall  we  condemn  him  upon 
the  testimony  of  a  man  who  says  that  when  he  was  eight 
years  old  he  knew  Miller,  and  knew  that  he  had  two  wives, 
when  it  is  positively  known  that  the  said  boy  never  saw 
Miller  until  after  he  was  nine  years  old?  Besides,  kind 
reader,  what  is  your  estimate  of  the  boy  as  a  witness, 
when  he  testifies  of  other  things? 

On  page  368,  after  speaking  of  the  disaffection  of  the 
Laws  and  Higbees  and  others  in  1844,  Bays  states: 

The  reader  will  perhaps  remember  that  the  Laws  and  Hi<r- 
bees  figured  in  the  certificate  concerning  Dr.  Bennett's  "secret 
wife  system,"  published  some  two  years  previously. 

In  this  the  ignorance  of  Bays  is  very  apparent  to  those 
who  are  acquainted  with  church  history.  Elias  Higbee, 
the  only  man  of  the  Higbees  who  signed  ttxe  certificate  of 
1842,  referred  to,  died  June  8,  1843,  and  consequently  was 
not  connected  with  the  disaffection  of  1844.  The  Higbees 
who  figured  in  1844  were  Francis  M.  and  Chauncey  M., 
neither  of  whom  signed  the  certificate  of  1842.  Sometimes 
Bays  talks  learnedly  on  law,  but  when  he  tries  to  impeach 
the  testimony  of  one  man  by  quoting  the  statements  of 
another,  we  are  inclined  to  doubt  the  reliability  of  his  legal 
learning,  notwithstanding  the  Christian  Publishing  House 
says  his  book  is  i 'accurate  and  reliable." 

In  conclusion  upon  this  point  it  becomes  our  painful 
duty  to  call  attention  to  the  moral  status  of  this  man  as  a 
witness  as  revealed  through  himself.  On  page  343,  in 
Bays'  attempt  to  make  Joseph  Smith  responsible  for  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  polygamy,  he  says: 

A  "thus  saith  the  Lord"  from  the  prophet  would  have  put  an 
eternal  quietus  on  the  question  of  polygamy.  But  it  never 
came;  and  so  Joseph  Smith,  and  J  srph  Smith  only,  must  be 
held  responsible  for  the  prevalence  of  the  most  abominable  sys- 
tem that  ever  cursed  and  degraded  a  free  people. 


36  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

This  means,  if  it  means  anything,  that  Joseph  Smith 
should  have  used  a  "thus  saith  the  Lord"  when  he  wished 
to  accomplish  a  desired  end,  and  that,  too,  without  refer- 
ence to  whether  the  Lord  instructed  him  thus  to  speak  or 
not,  and  in  case  he  did  not  he  is, to  be  held  personally 
responsible  for  it. 

If  this  is  or  was  Bays'  idea  of  the  duty,  prerogatives,  and 
privileges  of  a  prophet  he  is  not  nor  has  he  ever  been  in 
harmony  with  the  church,  for  the  church  has  always  held 
that  the  prophet  was  only  authorized  to  speak  as  he  was 
instructed  by  the  Lord  to  speak  when  he  uses  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  and  if  he  is  presumptuous  enough  to  speak  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  when  the  Lord  has  not  commanded  him, 
he  does  so  at  his  peril,  as  the  Lord  will  not  tolerate  such 
an  imposition  upon  his  people.  (Deut.  18:  20.) 

Recent  developments  however  disclose  the  fact  that 
Bays  years  ago  ignorantly  or  viciously  pursued  that 
policy,  as  the  following  affidavit  will  show 

Territory  of  Oklahoma,  ) 
Kingfisher  County,       f  s" 

AFFIDAVIT. 

In  the  spring  of  1870  or  '71  I  was  associated  with  Elder  D.  H. 
Bays  in  the  ministry  for  about  three  months  in  Eastern  Kansas 
and  Western  Missouri.  While  attending  a  prayer  meeting 
where  now  exists  the  Fanning,  Kansas,  branch,  Elder  Bays 
arose  to  speak  and  delivered  a  prophecy  which  was  intended  to 
adjust  difficulties  then  existing  there.  It  so  worked  upon  the 
mind  of  one  Br.  Davis  who  was  involved  in  the  trouble  that  he 
did  not  sleep  any  that  night,  so  it  was  said.  Elder  D.  H.  Bays 
said  to  me  the  next  morning,  You  see,  Bro.  Butler,  that  I  came 
out  with  the  word  of  the  Lord  on  that  matter  last  night. 

(Signed)  STEPHEN  BUTLER. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  October  25,  1898. 

WILLIAM  S.  WHIKLOW, 

Notary  Public. 

If  this  was  Bays'  standard  of  honor  and  right  it  will  be 
no  surprise  to  Latter  Day  Saints  and  those  that  know  our 
views  on  such  matters  that  he  found  the  Spirit  of  the  lat- 
ter-day work  incompatible  to  his  proclivities. 


REPLY    TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  37 

This  exhibition  of  shocking  moral  paralysis  betrayed 
here  is  supplemented  by  the  inconsistency  of  Elder  Bays 
in  his  accusing  Joseph  Sinith  of  manufacturing  revelations 
to  suit  his  convenience  at  times  and  then  finding  fault  with 
him  because  he  did  not,  and  holding  him  responsible  for 
the  existence  of  crime  because  he  did  not  manufacture  a 
revelation  expressly  forbidding  it.  This  is  made  worse 
when  we  consider  that  the  allegation  is  false,  for  there 
were  revelations  coming  through  Joseph  Smith  expressly 
forbidding  polygamy.  This  Bays  well  knows,  and  hence 
willfully  misrepresents.  The  Book  of  Mormon  translated 
by  Joseph  Smith  says: 

Wherefore,  my  brethren,  hear  me,  and  hearken  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord:  for  there  shall  not  any  man  among:  you  have  save 
it  be  one  wife;  and  concubines  he  shall  have  none:  For  I,  the 
Lord  God,  delighteth  in  the  chastity  of  women.— Jacob  2:6. 

A  revelation  given  through  Joseph  Smith  in  February, 
1831,  says: 

Thou  shalt  love  thy  wife  with  all  thy  heart,  and  shall  cleave 
unto  her  and  none  else;  and  he  that  looketh  upon  a  woman  to 
lust  after  her,  shall  deny  the  faith,  and  shall  not  have  the 
Spirit:  and  if  he  repents  not,  he  shall  be  cast  out. — Doctrine 
and  Covenants  42:  7. 

We  have  shown  these  misquotations  and  historical 
errors  to  present  the  utter  unreliability  of  the  book  and 
its  author  in  as  brief  a  manner  as  possible.  To  thus 
expose,  and  to  be  driven  to  the  conviction  ourself,  that  a 
former  associate  has  resorted  to  such  contemptible  work 
has  been  a  painful  duty  to  us,  but  the  interest  of  truth 
has  demanded  it  and  we  have  responded.  We  will  now  go 
back  and  examine  such  portions  of  this  book  consecutively 
as  may  be  demanded. 


CHAPTER  2. 

Bays'  Claim  to  Superior  Advantage  —  Condemns  Spalding  Story 
— Foundation  — Sam — Spiritual  Gifts-Cases  of  Healing— The 
Commission  — Joseph  Smith  Healed — Medicine  — Questions. 

IT  may  be  well  to  note  right  here  that  Elder  Bays  claims 
superior  advantage  over  others  who  have  essayed  to  write 
against  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  "Mormonism,"  because 
of  his  experience  on  the  inside.  He  says: 

Reared  in  the  faith  of  the  Saints  from  early  childhood,  and 
having  been,  for  twenty-seven  years,  a  /eulons  advocate  and 
defender  of  its  peculiarities,  the  writer  has  had  rare  opportuni- 
ties for  si  u  dying1  Mormon  ism  from  the  inside. 

The  line  of  argument  usually  emplo  ed  by  writers  and 
speakers  to  refute  the  Mormon  dogma  is  of  such  a  character  as 
to  render  success  almost  impossible. — Preface. 

It  will  be  pertinent  to  inquire,  What  possible  advantage 
can  this  be  to  him?  If  it  were  a  secret  system,  unknown 
to  any  but  those  on  the  inside,  then  there  might  be  some 
force  in  the  claim  that  he  had  the  advantage  over  his  less 
fortunate  competitors  in  this  field,  but  this  Mr.  Bays  has 
not  claimed,  but  assumes  throughout  to  meet  public  ques- 
tions as  publicly  taught  by  the  representatives  of  "Mor- 
monism."  Then,  if  he  can  succeed  where  others  who  had 
access  to  the  same  information  failed,  it  is  a  reflection  upon 
their  intelligence,  and  a  concession  that  all  the  efforts 
heretofore  made  by  his  brethren  and  others  against  "Mor- 
monism"  are- failures.  So  there  is  but  one  thing  in  the 
field  against  us,  and  that  is  the  "Doctrines  and  Dogmus 
of  Mormonism."  By  the  unqualified  indorsement  of  this 
book  the  Christian  Publishing  House  concedes  that  former 
efforts  against  us  have  been  failures.  For  this  concession 

we  thank  them. 
38 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  39 

No  wonder  that  after  their  repeated  failures  they 
received  this  would-be  champion  with  open  arms,  and  in 
the  language  of  Elder  A.  M.  Haggard,  of  Iowa,  said:  "I 
believe  the  man  and  his  book  are  children  of  Providence." 

Again  when  Elder  Bays  and  his  illustrious  indorsers 
concede  that  Providence  provided  for  them  in  the  hour  of 
their  defeat  and  peril,  and  that  in  that  provision  a  man 
was  sent  who  utilized  only  such  information  as  was  at 
their  disposal,  they  concede  that  a  man  schooled  in  "Mor- 
monism,"  possesses  superior  qualifications  to  those  who 
have  not  had  such  schooling. 

But  in  all  this,  one  of  the  vital  points  at  issue  between 
us  is  conceded;  viz.,  that  men  are  sometimes  specially 
called  of  God  for  the  accomplishment  of  certain  purposes. 
Again  we  thank  you. 

Bays  says: 

The  usual  debater  undertakes  to  trace  the  Book  of  Mormon 
to  the  Spaulding  romance  through  Sidney  Rigdon. 

Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous,  and  it  will  lead  to  almost 
certain  defeat.  The  well-informed  advocate  of  Mormonism 
wants  no  better  amusement  than  to  vanquish  an  opponent  in 
discussion  who  takes  this  ground.  The  facts  are  all  opposed  to 
this  view,  and  the  defenders  of  the  Mormon  doe-ma  have  the 
facts  well  in  hand.  I  speak  from  experience.— Page  22. 

Now  will  our  friends  of  the  Christian  Church  hear  these 
1  'children  of  Providence,"  and  thereby  concede  that  for  the 
last  half  century  and  more  they  have  been  wrong  and 
that  their  whole  theory  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  mis- 
take. Surely  there  is  hope  for  the  Christian  Church,  and 
we  feel  like  singing: 

While  the  lamp  holds  out  to  burn, 
The  vilest  sinner  may  return. 

Bays'  theory  that  it  was  Oliver  Cowdery  and  not  Sidney 
Rigdon  that  helped  Joseph  Smith  in  concocting  "Mormon- 
ism,"  we  have  already  exploded  by  showing  that  the  work 
was  already  in  progress  before  Cowdery  appeared. 

Now  that  the  Spalding  -Romance  Story  is,  abandoned, 


40  REPLY   TO    D.   H.   BA-YS. 

and  Bays'  theory  is  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found 
wanting,  we  suggest  that  it  is  time  for  the  birth  cf  more 
"children  of  Providence." 

On  page  26  Elder  Bays  misstates  the  case  under  the 
head  of  kkThe  Foundation,"  as  follows: 

That  the  whole  Mormon  superstructure  is  founded  upon  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  no  one  will  perhaps  attempt  to  deny. 

When  Elder  Bays  penned  that  he  well  knew  that  we  did 
and  do  deny  that  proposition.  He  knew  and  does  know 
that  we  claim  that  the  superstructure  which  he  vulgarly 
calls  "Mormonism*1  is  founded  upon  the  eternal  truth  of 
Heaven,  and  that  the  Book  of  Mormon,  like  the  Bible,  is 
but  confirmatory  testimony  of  that  truth. 

That  truth  would  have  been  the  same  had  the  Bible  nor 
the  Book  of  Mormon  never  been  written.  It  existed  before 
them  and  can  exist  without  them.  On  page  27  Mr.  Bays 
again  shows  his  ignorance  when  under  the  head  of  "The 
Purport  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,"  he  says: 

Dissension  finally  arises,  and  Nephi,  with  his  two  younger 
brothers,  Jacob  and  Joseph,  separated  from  their  elder  breth- 
ren, Laman,  Lemuel  and  Sam.  Henceforth  they  were  two 
separate  peoples,  known  as  "Nephites"  and  "Lamanites." 

No  possible  advantage  could  accrue  to  Mr.  Bays  in  mak- 
ing this  false  statement.  We  therefore  conclude  that  he 
must  have  done  it  through  ignorance.  The  Book  of  Mor- 
mon in  speaking  of  this  division  places  Sam  with  Nephi. 
It  reads  as  follows: 

Wherefore,  it  came  to  pass  ^that  I,  Nephi,  did  take  my 
family,  and  also  Zoram  and  his  family,  and  Sam,  mine  eldeV 
brother,  and  his  family,  and  Jacob  and  Joseph,  my  younger 
brethren,  and  also  my  sisters,  and  all  they  which  would  go  with 
me. — Page  71. 

In  chapter  3,  after  several  pages  of  high  sounding  plati- 
tudes regarding  the  spiritual  house  erected  by  the  Saints 
and  the  deceptive  character  of  the  same  without  a  word  of 
proof,  he  asserts  on  pages  38,  39: 


REPLY   TO  D.   H.  BAYS.  41 

It  is  the  boast  of  Latter  Day  Saints  that  no  man  living  can 
possibly  disprove  or  in  any  way  invalidate  their  claim  upon  this 
point.  In  the  first  place  the  burden  of  proof  lies  with  them.  They 
affirm  the  perpetuity  of  these  miraculous  powers,  while  we  sim- 
ply deny.  The  man  who  affirms  must  prove  what  he  affirms.  It 
is  entirely  sufficient  to  meet  an  affirmative  proposition  with  a 
bare  denial.  When  affirmative  evidence  has  been  introduced, 
the  negative  may  offer  such  evidence  in  rebuttal  as  may  be 
deemed  necessary.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  we  are  under  no 
obligation  to  disprove  any  affirmative  proposition. 

In  this  issue  Mormonism  has  affirmed  something,  and  has 
offered  testimony  to  prove  it — is  in  fact  the  plaintiff  in  an 
action  before  the  civilized  world,  and  asks  for  judgment  on  the 
ground  that  the  testimony  of  its  witnesses  sustains  the  allega- 
tion. Their  petition  sets  up  a  claim  that  certain  jewels— spir- 
itual gifts — at  one  time  in  the  possession  of  a  woman  of  great 
distinction— the  Church  of  Christ — rightfully  belong  to  said 
plaintiff. 

All  right,  we  introduce  as  sufficient  evidence  in  this  case 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ  as  follows: 

Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  And  these  signs  shall  fol- 
low them  that  believe;  In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils; 
they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues;  they  shall  take  up  serpents; 
and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them; 
they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover. — 
Mark  10:  15-18. 

According  to  rules  of  law  we  have  now  presented  prima 
facie  evidence  sufficient  to  establish  our  case  unless 
rebutted.  A  mere  denial  will  no  longer  answer  the  pur- 
pose of  our  opponents. 

They  must  impeach  the  witness  or  raise  a  demurrer,  in 
which  case  they  must  sustain  that  demurrer  by  showing 
that  the  testimony  is  incompetent,  irrelevant,  or  imma- 
terial. By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Bays,  with  all  his 
legal  acumen,  misunderstands  the  case.  If  he  contents 
himself  with  a  simple  denial  he  will  fail  to  defeat  us.  If  he 
raises  a  demurrer  he  is  not  required  to  prove  a  negative, 
but  to  introduce  evidence  to  sustain  his  contention.  The 
moment  he  takes  advantage  of  this  privilege  the  burden  of 
proof  rests  on  him,  and  if  he  fails  to  sustain  his  demurrer, 


42  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 


judgment  will  be  rendered  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  and  we 
will  be  awarded  possession  of  the  gifts  claimed.  When 
Bays  attempts  a  rebuttal  under  the  supposition  that  he  is 
proving  a  negative  he  betrays  his  ignorance  as  a  lawyer. 

We  make  no  claim  to  the  understanding  of  law,  but  we 
know  just  enough  to  smile  when  we  hear  a  man  like  Bays 
suppose  a  case  at  issue  before  a  court  of  justice  or  equity. 

It  might  be  well,  however,  to  state  here  that  Mr.  Bays' 
client — the  Christian  Church — has  no  case  in  court,  as  they 
make  no  claim  to  the  property  in  question.  Mr.  Bays  mis- 
states the  case  again  when  he  says  that  we  are  the  "plain- 
tiff in  an  action  before  the  civilized  world,"  and  ask  for 
judgment  there.  We  have  pled  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court,  and  asked  for  a  hearing  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  heaven;  the  case  has  been  entertained,  and  the  jewels 
awarded,  as  the  following  evidence  will  show. 

On  pages  72  and  73   of  his   book   Elder  Bays   himself 
quotes  one  of  many  recorded  cases  of  healing  as  follows: 
* 'HEALING  OP  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 

.  .  "So  the  mother  took  another  of  her  daughters  and  put 
her  upon  his  knee  [that  of  an  unbeliever],  and  said,  'Sir,  is  that 
child  blind?'  And  after  he  had  examined  her  eyes,  he  said, 
'Sheis.'  'Well,' said  the  mother,  'she  was  born  blind:  and  she 
is  now  four  years  old,  and  I  am  going  to  take  her  to  the  elders 
of  our  church  for  them  to  anoint  her  eyes  with  oil  and  lay  their 
hands  upon  her;  and  you  can  call  asrain  when  you  have  time, 
and  see  her  with  her  eyes  open  [opened.— H.  C.  S.].'  ^  . 
*Well,'  said  he,  'if  she  does  ever  see,  it  will  be  a  great  proof.' 

"Accordingly,  the  mother  broujrht  the  child  to  the  elders, 
and  Elder  John  Hackwell  anointed  her  e\res,  and  laid  his  hands 
upon  her,  only  once:  and  the  Lord  heard  his  prayer,  so  that  the 
child  can  now  see  with  both  of  her  eyes  as  well  as  any  other 
person.  For  which  we  [all.  — H.  C.  S.]  feel  thankful  to  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  are  willing  to  bear  testimony  of  it  to  all 
the  world.  Yours  in  the  Kingdom  of  God, 

"GEORGE  HALLIDAY. 

"P.  S. — We,  the  father  and  mother  of  the  child,  do  here  sign 
our  names  to  the  above,  as  being  true. 

" WILLIAM  BOUNSELL. 
"ELIZABETH  BOUNSELL. 

"No.  12  Bread  Street,  Bristol,  England,  Nov.  25,  1849." 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  43 

The  above,  with  over  a  score  of  other  similar  cases,  covering 
a  variety  of  ailments,  including  leprosy,  are  recorded  in  the 
work  from  which  this  is  taken.  (See  O.  Pratt's  works,  Divine 
Authenticity  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  No.  5,  page  71.) 

Mr.  Pratt*was  at  the  time  an  apostle  of  the  Utah  Church  and 
in  charge  of  the -English  mission,  and  the  parties  to  the  alleged 
healing  were  members  of  the  same  church. 

Who  can  believe  that  a  people  who  did  not  hesitate  for  a 
moment  to  violate  every  commandment  of  the  Decalogue  could 
possibly  be  blessed  with  such  marvelous  power,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  are  denied  to  the  peace-loving  and  virtuous? 
The  very 'claim  is  a  burlesque  on  Christianity,  and  is  alike 
repulsive  to  man  and  dishonoring  .to  God.  It  cannot  be  true. 

The  force  of  this  testimony  is  by  Mr.  Bays  set  aside  by 
gross  misrepresentation  of  the  truth.  No  claim  has  been 
made  except  by  Mr.  Bays  and  others  of  like  views  that  the 
peace  loving  and  virtuous  are  denied.  It  is  and  has  ever 
been  our  contention  that  the  peace-loving  and  virtuous  are 
not  denied.  The  above  argument  we  can  call  by  no  softer 
name  than  contemptible  pettifoggery. 

As  to  the  charge  that  the  people  testifying  "did  nols 
hesitate  for  a  moment  to  violate  every  commandment  o'l 
the  Decalogue,"  we  will  quote  from  the  manuscript  o:f 
Elder  Charles  Derry,  who  was  a  minister  among  them,  and 
to  whose  good  character  Mr.  Bays  has  testified.  (See 
page  26.) 

Addressing  Bays  he  says: 

Your  reference  to  the  work  of  the  church  in  Salt  Lake,  mani- 
fests your  want  of  candor.  You  know  the  miracles  you  men- 
tion were  not  wrought  in  Utah,  but  in  England;  nor  were  the 
elders  that  administered  in  those  cases  men  who  had  ever  been 
in  Utah,  nor  had  the  abomination  of  polygamy  been  accepted 
by  or  even  taught  to  them.  That  abomination  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1852,  and  the  above  manifestations  of  the  healing 
power,  according  to  your  own  showing,  which  is  for  once  in 
accord  w'ith  the  facts,  was  in  November,  1849.  These  people 
had  heard  and  obeyed  the  gospel,  had  sought  unto  God  for  the 
blessing  and  obiained  it.  And  while  the  work  in  England  was 
then  under  the  Brighamite  rule,  these  people  had  accepted  the 
truth  in  its  purity,  as  taught  by  Joseph  Smith,  and  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  apostasy  that  had  taken  place. 


44  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

Elder  Bays  continues: 

If  to  be  found  anywhere  within  the  domain  of  Mormonism, 
these  "spiritual  gifts"  might,  with  a  greater  show  of  reason,  be 
expected  among  the  people  of  the  Reorganized  Church,  whose 
membership,  I  am  glad  to  say,  are  as  a  rule  honest  and  law- 
abiding  people,  and  the  purity  of  whose  lives  no  man  may 
truthfully  question.  I  speak  of  this  as  the  merest  matter  of 
justice  to  the  membership  of  that  church.  But  do  they  pos- 
sess supernatural  powers? 

With  forty  years  of  acquaintance  with  Mormonism  in  its 
various  phases,  common  honesty  impels  me  to  say  I  have  never 
known  a  single  instance  of  miraculous  power.  I  have  wit- 
nessed, it  is  true,  what  I  was'at  the  time  willing  to  call  a 
miracle,  because,  like  all  others  who  believe  in  such  things,  I 
wished  to  have  it  so;  but  never  have  I  witnessed  anything 
which  would  bear  the  test  of  intelligent  scrutiny,  or  be  con- 
firmed by  candid,  so-ber  second  thought. — Pages  73,  74. 

We  agree  with  Elder  Bays  that  the  spiritual  gifts  might 
with  reason  be  expected  among  the  people  of  the  Reor- 
ganized Church,  and  we  thank  him  for  his  tribute  to  the 
character  of  the  members.  We  here  present  the  evidence 
of  a  remarkable  case  of  healing  in  the  Reorganization. 

A   CASE    OF   HEALING. 

Dear  Herald:  —  I  forward  you  the  facts  of  a  most  remarkable 
case  of  healing.  On  Saturday  morning,  October  13,  1877,  while 
Bro.  D.  Chambers,  Jun.,  who  lives  on  Spring  Creek,  Harrison 
county,  Iowa,  was  caring  for  one  of  his  colts  he  received  a 
severe  kick  over  his  right  eye,  and  in  his  breast,  from  both  feet 
of  the  animal.  The  force  of  the  kick  raised  him  from  the 
ground  and  sent  him  headlong  outside  of  the  stable,  several 
feet  from  where  the  colt  stood,  where  he  lay  in  a  helpless  con- 
dition, with  a  fearful  gash  over  his  right  eye  and  some  of  the 
breast  bones  broken.  He  made  an  effort  to  rise  but  failed.  His 
wife  was  soon  by  his  side,  and  she  called  to  her  assistance  a  Mr. 
Draper  who  happened  to  be  on  the  premises  with  his  thresher. 
They  succeeded  in  helping  him  to  the  house,  but  just  before 
reaching  there  his  sight  grew  dim  and  he  felt  as  if  death  was 
upon  him,  and  he  felt  an  ardent  desire  to  speak  to  his  wife  once 
more,  after  they  got  him  in  the  house  and  seated  on  a  chair, 
but  he  was  only  able  to  faintly  articulate  the  words  "Good-bye, 
Mary."  Mr.  Draper  suggested  to  Sister  Chambers  to  dispatch 
some  one  for  medical  aid  with  all  possible  speed,  not  that 
he  considered  it  possible  that  anything  could  be  done,  (think- 
ing he  was  too  far  gone,)  which  Sister  Chambers  did  not  do, 
but  sent  for  Bro.  W.  Chambers,  living  within  half  a  mile,  and 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  45 

in  the  meantime  she  applied  oil  and  prayed  for  her,  to  all  human 
appearance,  dying  husband,  as  best  she  could  under  the  dis- 
tressing and  exciting  circumstances. 

On  the  arrival  of  Bro.  W.  Chambers  a  terrible  sight  met  his 
gaze,  his  brother  lying  with  a  yawning  gash  over  his  eye  ren- 
dering the  skull  bone  visible,  his  head  resting  upon  hfs  chin 
and  but  little  or  no  signs  of  consciousness.  Wishing  to  get  him 
into  an  adjoining  room  that  peradventure  they  might  lay  him 
on  a  sofa,  he  suggested  it  to  Mr.  Draper.  An  attempt  was  made 
to  raise  him  from  the  chair  by  placing  their  hands  under  his 
arms,  but  his  cries  forced  them  to  desist,  but  raising  the  chair 
they  conveyed  him  to  another  room,  propping  him  up  as  best 
they  could,  and  proceeded  to  anoint  him  with  oil.  By  this 
time  his  breast  was  much  swollen  and  turning  black,  yet 
though  swollen,  there  was  quite  an  unnatural  hollow  or  sunken 
place  therein,  and  the  slightest  touch  of  the  shoulders,  arms, 
head,  face,  or  breast,  would  cause  the  most  acute  pain,  while 
the  least  move  of  the  head  or  arms  would  produce  sounds  like 
the  grating  of  broken  bones.  His  chin  still  resting  upon  his 
breast,  and  signs  of  blood  accumulated  in  his  throat,  causing 
apprehension  of  his  choking.  Bro.  W.  Chambers  called  upon 
his  father  to  assist  in  laying  on  hands.  But  little  benefit  was 
received  by  the  sufferer,  except  a  partial  restoration  to  con- 
sciousness. They  administered  a  second  time  with  but  little 
better  result.  The  injured  man  then  spoke,  and  asked  them  if 
they  had  not  faith  to  rebuke  the  pain.  Whereupon  Bro.  W. 
Chambers  administered  the  third  time,  rebuking  the  pain  and 
commanding  him  to  arise,  which  he  did  and  walked  into  the 
room  from  which  he  had  been  so  recently  carried  as  one  almost 
dead,  and  sat  down  and  ate  a  hearty  breakfast. 

Mr.  Draper,  who  had  assisted  in  carrying  him  to  the  house, 
while  the  brethren  were  praying,  went  out;  but  mark  his  sur- 
prise on  returning,  with  three  or  four  other  non-members  of  the 
church,  at  seeing  him  whom  they  supposed  was,  or  soon  would 
be  dead,  seated  at  the  table  eating  and  drinking.  They  stood 
and  gazed  with  astonishment,  yet  glad  to  see  the  change, 
as  evidenced  by  the  fact  of  each  one  of  them  shaking  hands 
with  him  as  if  he  was  an  intimate  friend  who  had  just  returned 
from  a  long  journey.  This  being  done  Bro.  D.  Chambers  bore 
testimony  of  God's  power  by  which  he  had  been  saved  from 
death  and  made  whole. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  describe  the  joy  of  his  wife,  his  brother 
and  wife,  and  father,  all  of  whom  were  present,  at  seeing  one  so 
dear  to  them  so  marvelously  saved  from  the  jaws  of  death;  all 
can  imagine  it. 

The  following  being  Sunday,  he  was  in  the  house  of  prayer, 
telling  the  Saints  of  the  Spring  Creek  branch  how  wondrously 
the  Lord  had  wrought  with  him,  which  moved  others  to  prayer 


46.  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

and  praise,  by  whicft  they  enjoyed  a  time  long  to  be  remem- 
bered. 

About  two  hours  passed  from  the  time  of  the  terrible  accident 
to  his  being  seated  at  the  table.  The  gash  over  his  eyes  was 
drawn  together  and  some  sticking  plaster  applied,  and  it 
healed  without  the  least  matteration;  and,  at  this  date,  the 
scar  is  only  visible  by  close  inspection.  He  experienced  weak- 
ness but  for  a  few  days,  after  which  he  turned  his  attention  to 
his  labor,  and  has  been  as  healthy  and  robust  as  ever. 

JAMES  CAFFALL. 
Wm.  Chambers,  \ 

Louisa  M.  Chambers,     ) 
Mary  N.  Chambers,        (    nr-  + 
John  Chambers,  Witnesses. 

David  Chambers,  Sen. 
Jonathan  McKee, 
UNIOKBUTO.  T^wa.  Dec  11, 1877. 

With  some  if  not  all  of  these  witnesses  Elder  Bays  was 
well  acquainted,  and  he  will  not  put  himself  on  record  as 
against  their  reputation  for  veracity.  He  may  try  to 
explain  it  away,  but  he  can  make  no  explanation  that  will 
not  apply  with  equal  force  against  the  record  concerning 
the  jewels  when  "in  the  possession  of  a  woman  of  great 
distinction — the  Church  of  Christ." 

I  submit  that  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  cannot  be 
set  aside'  by  the  testimony  of  Bays  that  he  never  saw  any- 
thing of  the  kind. 

The  presumption  of  the  man  is  astounding.  No  miracles 
were  wrought  among  the  Latter  Day  Saints  while  he  was 
with  them  because  he  never  witnessed  them.  Now  he  goes 
over  to  the  Christian  Church  and  coolly  informs  its  mem- 
bers that  their  efforts  at  'fighting  Mormons  were  futile 
until  he  came  on  the  scene. 

In  regard  to  the  existence  of  other  manifestations  of 
power,  though  we  might  fill  a  volume  with  the  evidence  of 
such  cases,  we  content  ourselves  with  referring  for  the 
present  to  the  testimony  of  Elder  Bays,  as  found  on  page 
23  of  this  work,  where  he  testifies  to  a  wonderful  manifes- 
tation of  God's  power,  and  to  his  having  known  results 
before  their  happening. 


REPLY   TO   D.   S.   BAYS.  47 

Mr.  Bays  then  attempts  to  analyze  the  commission 
recorded  in  Mark  sixteenth  chapter,  and  reasons  that  the 
promise  made  in  connection  therewith  was  limited  to  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles,  because  it  was  not  possible  for 
the  disciples  spoken  to,  to  go  into  all  the  world,  and  hepce 
the  promise  would  only  apply  to  those  to  whom  they 
preached.  He  concludes  his  argument  as  follows: 

Here  is  a  promise;  but  to  whom  does  it  extend?  Are  there 
no  limitations?  Let  us  see.  "And  these  signs  shall  follow  them 
that  believe."  Follow  them  that  believe  what?  Why,  the  Gos- 
pel, to  be  sure.  "And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe 
the  Gospel?"  Preached  by  whom?  Why,  by  the  disciples,  of 
course,  for  none  others  were  authorized.  Analyzed,  the  propo- 
sition stands  thus:  "And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that 
believe  the  Gospel  preached  by  the  disciples."  Just  that,  and 
nothing  more,  is  affirmed. 

Thi§  analysis  shows  most  conclusively  that  the  promise  of 
miraculous  powers  was  limited  to  the  lifetime  of  the  first  dis- 
ciples—the eleven,  and  those  upon  whom  they  had  laid  their 
hands.  — Page  40. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  order  to  limit  the  promise  he 
limits  the*  commission,  claiming  that  no  others  were 
authorized  by  the  commission  except  the  disciples 
addressed.  On  the  previous  page  this  is  even  more 
plainly  brought  out  when  he  says: 

"Go  ye  into  all  the  world."  Who  go  into  all  the  world?  The 
disciples,  the  eleven.  No  one  else  is  addressed,  and  hence,  no  one 
ehe  is  included.  This  seems  conclusive. 

Mr.  Bays  is  consistent  in  this,  for  it  is  impossible  to 
limit  the  promise  without  limiting  the  commission.  But 
imagine  our  surprise  when  on  the  very  next  page  he  states 
an  opposite  conclusion.  Hear  him: 

While  the  Great  Commission  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  admin- 
ister its  ordinances  was  general,  extending,  under  proper  con- 
ditions, to  every  age  and  every  nation  under  the  heavens,  the 
"signs, "or  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  confined,  as 
we  have  already  shown,  to  the  times  of  the  apostles.  While 
these  miraculous  powers  were  limited  to  the  apostolic  age,  the 
obligation  to  "preach  the  Gospel  to  ever}7  creature,"  along  with 


48  REPLY  Tro   D.   H.   BAYS. 

the    "conditions   upon    which    sinners   are  accepted    under  the 
Gospel,"  as  provided  in  the  commission,  was  made  perpetual. 

How  he  can  come  to  a  conclusion  that  the  commission 
was  general,  extending  to  every  age  and  every  nation  and 
yet  that  none  but  the  eleven  were  authorized  by  it,  is  a 
problem  that  perhaps  none  but  these  "children  of  Provi- 
dence" can  explain.  It  is  not  necessary  to  occupy  space  in 
discussing  the  point.  Every  one  who  reads  the  words  of  the 
Master:  "He  that  believelh  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned.  And 
these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe;"  knows  that  the 
premise  of  the  signs  is  just  as  general  in  its  application  as 
is  this  conditional  promise  of  salvation,  and  to  preach  the 
one  while  you  deny  the  other  is  a  travesty  on  common 
sense.  No  rule  of  lauguage  will  permit  the  making  of  one 
general  in  its  application  while  the  other  is  limited. 

While  it  was  not  practicable  for  the  apostles  to  visit 
every  spot  on  the  globe,  their  commission  was  not  limited 
by  geographical  lines.  They  had  the  autlwrity+lQ  go  any- 
where on  the  earth,  and  more,  their  authority  was  in  force 
whether  present  or  not.  A  message  from  them,  whether 
by  tongue  or  pen,  was  and  is  in  force  wherever  heard. 
Would  Bays  have  us  to  understand  that  authority  is  some- 
thing that  floats  around  a  man  as  he  moves?  If  so  will  he 
please  give  us  the  cubic  dimensions  of  the  space  it 
occupies?  We  think  that  it  is  coextensive  with  the  power 
behind  it.  Are  we  right?  Whether  the  commission  was 
to  the  eleven  alone  matters  not,  wherever  it  was  in  force 
it  carried  with  it  the  premises  connected  with  it.  Should 
God  call  others  who  were  not  directly  included  in  the  com- 
mission the  same  conditions  would  apply  or  his  ways  are 
not  unchangeable.  If  Bays  is  right  and  the  signs  were 
only  to  follow  those  who  heard  the  eleven  and  received  the 
gospel  through  their  ministrations,  then  those  who 
received  it  under  the  preaching  of  Matthias  or  Paul  were 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  49 

excluded.  Read  Paul's  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
twelfth,  and  following  chapters,  and  your  minds  will  be 
freed  from  this  bungling  fallacy. 

Mr.  Bays  enters  upon  a  long  dissertation  on  the  gifts,  in 
•which  he  depends  almost  entirely  upon  what  he  does  not 
know.  .Bays  cid  not  see — Bays  did  not  hear,  hence  there 
was  nothing  to  see  or  hear!  To  reply  to  such  sophistry 
would  be  an  insult  to  our  readers. 

Elder  Bays  assumes,  without  proof,  that  the  prime 
object  for  which  the  gift  of  speaking  in  unknown  tongues 
was  given,  was  to  preach  the  gospel  to  men  of  different 
languages,  and  hence  confines  its  necessity  to  the  days  of 
ignorance  when  the  ambassadors  of  Christ  were  not 
acquainted  with  the  language  and  dialects  of  those  to 
whom  it  was  necessary  to  preach.  This  argument  is  quite 
plausible,  but  are  the  premises  correct? 

Elder  Bays  quotes  as  evidence  Acts  2:8:  "And  how 
hear  we  every  man  in  our  own  tongue,  wherein  we  .were 
born?"  It  is  true  that  on  this  occasion  representatives  of 
different  nations  heard  the  gospel,  each  in  his  own  tongue; 
but  this  does  not  prove  that  the  prime  purpose  was  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  in  different  languages.  We  have 
no  evidence  that  when  this  gift  was  first  exercised  at  the 
time  referred  to  there  was  anyone  present  but  the  disci- 
ples, who  were  all  Galileans.  The  record  says: 

And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all 
•  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenl}"  there  came  a 
sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled 
all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance.  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews, 
devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven.  Now  when 
this  was  noised  abroad,  the  multitude  came  together,  and 
were  confounded,  because  that  every  man  heard  them  speak 
in  his  own  language. 

It  will   be  seen  that  they  began  speaking  in   tongues 


50  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

before  the  multitude  gathered,  and  the  report  of  this  is 
what  caused  the  multitude  to  come  together.  They  were 
then  speaking  to  each  other,  but  when  the  multitude  came 
they  did  not  cease.  It  was  not  then  exercised  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preaching  to  the  public,  but  the  people  came 
during  the  service  and  incidentally  heard  in  their  own 
tongue. 

In  connection  with  this  please  to  read  Paul's  instruction 
to  the  Corinthians  as  follows: 

Wherefore  let  him  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue  pray 
that  he  may  interpret. — 1  Cor.  14:13. 

Why  should  he  interpret  if  he  was  speaking  to  men  in 
their  own  tongue? 

If  therefore  the  whole  church  be  come  together  into  one 
place,  and  all  speak  with  tongues,  and  there  come  in  those  that 
are  unlearned,  or  unbelievers,  will  they  not  say  that  ye  are 
mad?— 1  Cor.  14:23. 

Why  say  that  they  were  mad  if  they  were  talking  to 
them  in  their  own  tongue?  Again, 

If  any  man  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue,  let  it  be  by  two,  or 
at  the  most  by  three,  and  that  by  course;  and  let  one  interpret. 
But  if  there  be  no  interpreter,  let  him  keep  silence  in  the 
church;  and  let  him  speak  to  himself,  and  to  God.— 1  Cor.  14: 

27,  28. 

Where  is  the  demand  for  an  interpreter  if  you  speak  to  a 
man  in  his  own  language? 

It  would  seem  from  this  that  Bays  is  again  wrong,  but 
even  if  he  were  right  and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in 
other  tongues  was  the  prime  object,  it  does  not  follow 
that  there  were  not  other  purposes  for  which  this  wonder- 
ful gift  was  given.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  time  has 
passed  that  it  could  be  used  to  advantage  in  the  preaching 
of  the  word.  Instances  are  on  record  where  men  have 
spoken  in  the  tongue  of  others  who  were  present,  but 
whether  the  Latter  Day  Saints  have  enjoyed  these  gifts  or 
not,  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is,  Has  God  pro- 
vided that  the  faithful  shall  enjoy  them?  If  so,  those  who 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  51 

do   not   avail   themselves   of    this    privilege  are    lacking, 
whether  they  be  Saints  or  Christians. 

It  has  always  seemed  strange  to  us  that  men  will  call  on 
the  Latter  Day  Saints  to  demonstrate  practically  that 
Christ's  promise  is  true.  Our  idea  is  that  God  is  true  if 
every  Latter  Day  Saint  on  earth  should  fdil  to  occupy  upon 
his  privilege.  The  challenge  of  Bays  and  others  of  like 
views  that  a  sign  be  shown  is  virtually  a  challenge  to  God 
that  if  he  will  demonstrate  through  these  Latter  Day 
Saints  that  he  told  the  truth  they  will  believe  him.  Ho 
may  accommodate  you  sometime,  but  we  do  not  know,  as 
we  are  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  his  purposes  to  tell; 
but  one  thing  is  certain,  it  will  depend  upon  him  to  deter- 
mine whether  your  challenge  will  be  met  or  not.  While 
you  are  awaiting  on  him  we  respectfully  suggest  the  con- 
sideration of  the  statement  of  Christ  to  Thomas: 

Because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed:  blessed  are 
they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed. 

On  page  56  and  following  pages  Mr.  Bays  attempts  an 
exegesis  of  1  Corinthians,  12th  chapter.  He  admits  that 
the  "gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  intended  to  continue 
with  the  church  at  Corinth  till  they  had  reached  mature 
manhood  in  Christ."  He  then  bases  an  argument  on  the 
words:  "But  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts:  and  yet  shew 
I  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way";  to  show  that  this  more 
excellent  way  was  to  entirely  supersede  the  gifts  unto 
their  abandonment.  This  places  Paul  in  the  attitude  of 
exhorting  the  saints  at  Corinth  to  covet  earnestly  the 
least  excellent  way  and  that,  too,  after  they  were  shown 
the  "more  excellent  way."  This  is  neither  good  philosophy 
nor  good  theology,  nor  is  it  the  work  of  a  wise  master 
builder  such  as  we  have  esteemed  Paul  to  be.  We  cannot 
therefore  accept  of  this  conclusion  without  further  inquiry. 
We  ask,  Would  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual  gifts  hinder 
the  exercise  of  charity?  If  not,  why  do  away  with  them 


52  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

in  the  getting  of  charity?  It  seems  to  us  that  the  idea  of 
Paul  is  that  gifts  without  charity  would  be  least  excellent, 
and  therefore  he  urges  that  they  should  not  covet  the 
spiritual  gifts  alone,  but  should  seek  charity  in  addition  to 
the  gifts.  He  says: 

Though  I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels,  and 
have  not  charity,  I  am  become  as  sounding  brass,  or  a  tinkling 
cymbal.  And  though  I  have  the  gift  of  prophec}7,  and  under- 
stand all  mysteries,  and  all  knowledge;  and  though  I  have,  all 
faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  mountains,  and  have  not  charity, 
I  am  nothing. 

There  is  no  intimation  here  that  these  things  could  not 
exist  with  charity.  The  contrast  is  drawn  here  between 
the  gifts  without  charity  and  the  gifts  with  charity.  The 
Corinthians  are  exhorted  to  covet  the  best  gifts  because 
they  are  good,  but  told  that  to  have  charity  is  more  excel- 
lent than  to  have  the  gifts  without  it.  Bays,  however, 
hits  the  right  idea  when  he  says  in  his  summing  up,  uln 
charity,  or  love,  we  have  the  sum  of  them  all." 

Would  the  sum  of  them  all  remain  if  we  subtract  the 
parts? 

But  Elder  Bays  quotes  what  he  calls  positive  evidence 
that  the  spiritual  gifts  were  to  cease  as  follows: 

Charity  never  faileth:  but  whether  there  be  prophecies,  they 
shall  fail;  whether  there  be  tongues,  they  shall  cease;  whether 
there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  vanish  away.  — 1  Cor.  13:8. 

This  is  evidently  to  be  understood  in  the  same  light  as 
that  going  before,  where  the  contrast  is  made  between  a 
part  and  the  whole,  and  this  is  made  clear  by  the  context, 
for  Paul  includes  knowledge  with  the  things  which  were  to 
vanish  away,  and  yet  in  speaking  of  the  consummation  of 
this  transformation  says,  ''Then  shall  I  know  even  as  also  I 
am  known."  If  knowledge  in  the  absolute  sense  shall  have 
passed  away  it  will  be  impossible  for  the  consummation 
spoken  of  by  Paul  to  obtain.  Nor  can  you  make  the  doing 
away  of  tongues  and  prophecy  absolute  without  applying 
the  same  rule  to  knowledge. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  53 

On  page  58  Mr.  Bays  makes  this  astounding  statement: 

Of  the  nine  spiritual  Drifts  named  in  the  twelfth  chapter,  but 
one  was  permanent — FAITH.  All  others  were  to  vanish — pass 
away. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  invite  attention  to  these  nine  to 
show  the  reader  the  foolishness  of  this  position,  as  knowl- 
edge and  wisdom  are  of  the  nine.  We  submit  that  with- 
out knowledge  or  wisdom  intelligent  faith  would  be 
impossible. 

Bays  continues: 

All  men  are  required  to  become  godly;  that  is,  become  like 
God. 

Permit  us  to  ask  how  a  man  can  become  like  God  with- 
out wisdom  or  knowledge? 

In  Mr.  Bays'  chapter  5,  commencing  on  page  62,  in 
speaking  of  deadly  things  he  criticises  a  statement  of 
Joseph  Smith's  that  at  a  certain  time  and  place  he  was 
sick  and  vomited  up  poisonous  matter,  and  subsequently 
was  healed  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  He  thinks  that 
there  should  have  been  evidence  produced  that  poison  was 
administered,  and  then  it  should  have  been  analyzed  to 
show  the  presence  of  poison. 

To  ordinary  mortals  if  the  first  proposition  was  proven 
it  would  obviate  the  necessity  of  proving  the  second,  but 
he  makes  a  case  where  there  is  none,  and  then  demands 
unreasonable  evidence  to  support  it.  Mr.  Smith  was 
making  no  effort  to  sustain  a  case  against  anybody  for 
poisoning  him,  he  was  not  trying  to  make  a  case  to  sustain 
the  truth  of  the  promise  of  the  Savior.  Nor  has  anybody 
to  our  knowledge  ever  presented  it  in  evidence.  He 
simply  relates  an  experience,  as  anyone  else  would  do 
under  similar  circumstances,  without  seeking  to  prove 
anything  by  it.  Had  he  intended  to  have  prosecuted  the 
parties  he  would  have  probably  secured  evidence  to  sus- 
tain his  case.  We  think,  however,  that  even  in  that  case 


54  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

he  would  not  have  been  compelled  to  prove  the  presence  of 
poison  after  he  had  proved  that  poison  was  administered. 
Had  he  desired  to  make  a  fraudulent  case  to  prove  that  he 
enjoyed  the  blessing  promised  by  the  Savior,  he  would 
have  said  that  he  drank  the  poison  but  felt  no  effects 
from  it. 

Then  Bays  wants  to  know  why  he  suffered  as  much  as 
he  did,  and  why  Bishop  Whitney  was  not  healed.  Now  we 
frankly  say  we  do  not  know,  but  it  is  not  the  only  thing 
that  we  do  not  know.  We  do  not  know  why  Timothy  was 
not  healed,  but  advised  to  "use  a  little  wine  for  thy 
stomach's  sake  and  thine  often  infirmities."  (1  Tim.  5:23  ) 
We  do  not  know  why  Trophimus  was  not  healed  but  ''left 
at  Miletum  sick."  (2  Timothy  4:  20  )  But  because  we  do 
not  know  these  things,  shall  we  say  that  we  do  not  believe 
that  Eneas  was  healed  of  palsy,  or  that  Tabitha  was 
raised?  (Acts  9:32-43.)  Or  shall  we  demand  that  the 
viper  that  fastened  itself  upon  Paul's  hand  be  analyzed  to 
determine  that  it  was  poison?  We  have  no  testimony  in 
any  of  these  cases  except  the  narrative  as  related  by  a 
single  writer.  Some  other  witnesses  were  named,  but  we 
have  not  their  testimony.  If  Bays  would  subject  the 
miracles  of  the  Bible  to  the  same  test  that  he  does  the  one 
in  question  he  would  find  just  as  much  difficulty. 

On  page  65,  in  his  attempt  to  show  that  the  necessity 
for  the  healing  of  the  sick  by  divine  power  is  past,  Mr. 
Bays  says: 

Little  was  kno.wn  at  that  a<re  of  the  world  concerning  the 
science  of  medicine.  Physiology  had  not  yet  been  born.  The 
action  of  the  heart  was  little  understood,  and  it  remained  for 
Harvey  to  discover  the  circulation  of  the  blood. 

Physicians  of  that  day  were  powerless  to  contend  with  the 
malignant  forms  of  disease  which  then  afflicted  humanity. 

To  make  this  point  of  any  force  the  claim  will  have  to  be 
made  that  physicians  can  now  successfully  contend  with  all 
the  malignant  forms  of  disease  which  now  afflict  humanity. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  55 

Is  this  true?  Does  not  the  devastation  of  certain  diseases 
sometimes  sweep  our  land  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of 
our  most  skilled  physicians?  This  needs  no  proof.  Rea- 
soning then  from  Bays'  own  premises,  there  is  need  now 
for  divine  interposition  in  the  healing  of  the  sick,  and  God 
is  on  record  as  willing  to  supply  that  demand. 

If  it  be  argued  that  physicians  are  more  skillful  now 
than  then,  still  from  Bays'  standpoint  of  reasoning  God 
will  supply  the  deficiency,  whether  it  be  great  or  small. 
Then  though  his  premises  be  correct  his  conclusion  is 
wrong.  But  what  about  the  premises?  Is  it  true  that 
little  was  known  about  the  science  of  medicine  at  that 
time? 

On  this  point  we  will  again  quote  from  the  manuscript  of 
Elder  Charles  Derry: 

Johnson's  Cyclopgedia  informs  us  that  the  "art  and  science  of 
curing  diseases  had  its  origin  away  back  in  the  early  history  of 
humanity;"  among  its  professors  and  teachers  may  be  men- 
tioned Pythagoras  who  was  born  B.  c.  582,  and  Hyppocrates,  B. 
c.  400.  The  Alexandrian  School  began  320  B.  c.  Medicine  was 
introduced  into  Rome  from  Greece  200  years  B.  c.,  and  although 
it  is  not  claimed  to  have  been  perfect  then,  it  must  have  been 
to  a  degree  successful,  or  it  could  not  have  been  perpetuated; 
but  no  one  will  claim  perfection  for  it  now.  We  are  also  told 
the  circulation  of  the  blood  was  discovered  by  Harvey,  A.  D. 
1016.  This  and  other  discoveries  are  said  to  be  of  recent  date. 
If  Bays'  argument  amounts  to  anything  it  shows  that  ignorance 
of  these  medical  discoveries,  and  the  imperfection  of  the 
science  make  it  necessary  for  God  to  place  the  gift  of  healing 
in  the  church.  If  that  is  true  the  same  cause  would  render  it 
necessary  that  it  should  have  continued  until  these  later  dis- 
coveries were  made,  and  since  the  science  of  medicine  is  not 
yet  claimed  to  be  perfect,  the  same  cause  demands  that  the 
gift  should  yet  remain,  until  a  perfect  panacea  for  all  the  ills 
of  life  is  found.  It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  present  evi- 
dence to  show  that  such  a  panacea  is  needed  today.  The  tens 
of  thousands  of  cases  in  which  the  skill  of  the  wisest  physicians 
is  baffled  is  irrefutable  evidence  of  the  helplessness  of  humanity. 
We  are  not  desirous  of  detracting  one  sinjrle  meed  of  praise 
from  the  science  of  medicine,  but  are  willing  to  accord  it  all 
that  it  deserves;  but  we  have  a  thousand  times  more  faith  in 
the  Great  Physician,  who  gave  us  our  being,  than  all  the  human 


56  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

skill  in  the  world.  And  until  it  can  be  shown  directly  and 
positively  from  the  word  of  God,  that  the  gift  of  healing*  with 
every  other  blessing  promised  by  Jesus  Christ  was  to  be  limited 
to  the  apostolic  aire,  we  shall  continue  to  believe  in,  and  tench 
the  continued  verity  of,  the  promise,  "These  signs  shall  follow 
them  that  believe." 

Bays  again  comes  to  the  rescue  here  with  the  testimony 
of  what  he  has  not  seen.  We  need  not  inform  our  readers 
that  this  is  entirely  incompetent  evidence.  Again  Mr. 
Bays  demands  a  sign  and  concludes  with  the  following 
challenge: 

When  any  latter-day  apostle  shall  duplicate  these  miracles, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  shall  he  be  able  to  maintain  .the  claim 
of  Mormon  ism  to  miraculous  powers. --Page  09. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  for  us  to  remind  the  reader  that 
"Mormonism"  claims  no  miraculous  power.  We  claim  that 
all  power  is  in  God  apd  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
they  are  the  same  yesterday,  today,  and  forever;  hence 
the  power  exercised  by  them  beforetime  may  be  expected 
now. 

We  will  again  allow  Elder  Derry  to  answer  upon  this 
point.  He  says: 

Mr.  Bays,  about  thirty-seven  years  ago  I  administered  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  to  you,  and  I  believe  assisted  in  your 
confirmation.  For  twenty-seven  years  .you  acted  as  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  in  the  Reorganized  Church  and  claim  to  have 
been  a  zealous  defender  of  its  doctrines  during  that  period. 
Did  you,  during  that  membership  and  ministry,  ever  know  an 
approved  minister  of  the  church  to  teach  you  or  any  of  its 
membership  or  ministry,  that  you  or  they  might,  must,  or 
should  try  to  imitate  any  of  the  gifts  of  the  gospel  in  order  to 
make  the  people  believe  that  the  gifts  were  in  the  church,  or 
for  any  other  purpose?  Did  you  ever  know  any  of  the  approved 
ministry  of  the  church  to  countenance  what  they  believed  to 
be  false  gifts  in  any  capacity  whatever,  if  such  were  mani- 
fested? If  not,  where  is  your  warrant  for  pronouncing  these 
gifts  a  fraud,  and  the  ministry  and  membership  who  claim  to 
possess  tn'ern  impostors?  You  have  failed  to  show  that  God  or 
Christ  had  repealed  his  gracious  promise,  "These  signs  shall 
follo\y  them  that  believe"  (Mark  1(5). 

•  When  men  undertake  to  deceive  their  fellow  men,  there  must 
be  some  advantage  to  be  gained,  either  in  worldly  honors,  or 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  57 

wealth,  or  some  prospect  of  advancement  in  the  temporalities 
of  life.  They  can  have  no  hope  of  a  reward  for  deception  in 
the  life  to  come.  And  right  here  we  ask,  what  worldly  fame, 
honor,  or  wealth  can  the  Latter  Day  Saint,  whether  minister  or 
lay  member,  possibly  expect  to  receive  for  believing1  and  teach- 
ing a  doctrine  that  all  the  world,  professing  Christian  or  non- 
professor,  are  so  diametrically  opposed  to?'  What  has  been 
their  reward  hithert  ?  It  has  been  the  blackest  calumny  that 
hell  could  vomit  forth,  and  that  from  the  lips  of  men  who  pro- 
fess to  be  the  followers  of  the  pure  and  lowly  Nazarene.  It  has 
been  persecution  of  every  kind,  imprisonment,  mobbings,  burn- 
ings of  homes,  desolation  of  farms,  slaying  of  men,  women,  and 
children;  and  at  last  the  cruel,  cold-blooded  murder  of  their 
Prophet  and  Patriarch.  .  .  .  This  is  the  history  of  the  church 
for.  the  first  fourteen  years  of  its  existence;  and  while  the  mob- 
bings, burnings,  imprisonment,  and  murder  have  ceased,  the 
vile  calumny  is  still  vomited  forth  both  from  press  and  pulpit, 
and  we  are  accounted  as  the  otfscouring  of  the  earth.  Verily, 
impostors  would  have  wilted  long  ago  under  such  treatment; 
but  these  people  "stand  like  the  beaten  anvil  to  the  stroke." 
They  still  insist  the  message  they  have  received  and  bear  to  the 
world  is  eternal  truth  and  God  is  its  author.  They  ask  for  no 
earthly  reward.  They  sacrifice  the  comforts  of  home,  and  the 
society  of  all  that  is  dear  to  them;  yea,  they  give  their  own 
lives  a  sacrifice  in  order  to  bless  and  enlighten  an  ungrateful 
world -to  lead  it  into  the  narrow  way  of  eternal  life.  No! 
Mr.  Bays,  you  cannot  prove  to  me  that  this  church  is  a  fraud; 
I  have  tasted  of  the  good  word  of  God,  and  have  drank  at  the 
fountain  of  eternal  life;  and  your  opposition  only  strengthens 
the  children  of  God  in  the  way  of  righteousness;  for  we  reali/e 
that  "No  weapon  that  is  formed  against  it  shall  prosper;  and 
every  tongue  that  shall  rise  against  it  in  judgment  shall  be  con- 
demned," for  God  hath  spoken  it. 


CHAPTER    3. 

Corruption— Church  Organization  —  Patriarch — Office  of  Apos- 
tle—  Rays  Differs  from  Peter — Apostle  an  Ambassador  — 
Apostolic  Qualifications  —  Rule  of  Succession  —  First  Presi- 
dency—Patriarch—The Church. 

ON  page  76  Bays  repeats  his  false  charge  referred  to 
on  page  14  of  this  book,  that  we  charge  all  professors  with 
being  corrupt,  only  here  he  attributes  it  to  Moroni.  Then 
proceeding  upon  this  false  assumption  he  says: 

Corruption,  indeed!  Where,  under  the  broad  canopy  of 
heaven,  did  there  ever  exist  a  people  calling  themselves 
Christian,  who  were  more  intolerably  corrupt  than  the  peo- 
ple who  composed  the  different  factions  which  grew  up  out 
of  the  wreck  of  the  first  Mormon  Church  after  the  death  of 
the  Smiths  at  Carthage,  111.,  in  1844?  Let  those  who  live  in 
glass  houses  beware  how  they  cast  stones.  —  Page  77. 

Let  us  suppose  that  there  has  been  more  corruption 
among  the  factions  of  the  church  since  the  death  of  the 
Smiths  than  is  usually  found  among  other  people.  What 
does  this  suggest?  Compare  this  alleged  fact  with  the 
following  scripture: 

When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he  walketh 
through  dry  places,  seeking  rest;  and  finding  none,  he  sailh,  I 
will  return  unto  my  house  whence  I  came  out.  And  when  he 
cometh,  he  findeth  it  swept  and  garnished.  Then  goeth  he, 
and  laketh  to  him  seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  him- 
self, and  they  enter  in,  and  dwell  there:  and  the  last  state  of 
that  man  is  worse  than  the  first.  — Luke  11:21-20. 

If  Mr.  Bays  is  right  about  the  "intolerable  corruption" 
of  the  people  composing  these  factions,  does  it  not  suggest 
in  the  light  of  this  scripture  that  they  have  sometime  been 
cleansed  by  the  evil  spirit  going  out  of  them  and  their  cor- 
ruption is  the  result  of  their  entertaining  that  evil  spirit 

again  with  his  seven  companions?     We  think  there  can  be 

58 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  59 

but  little  virtue  in  a  church  that  a  man  can  leave  and 
retain  all  his  goodness  and  purity.  Such  a  church  will  do 
no  man  any  good.  The  quicker  out  of  it  the  better.  We 
have  often  observed  that  no  man  can  leave  the  fellowship 
of  the  Saints  and.  disregard  the  teaching  of  the  church 
with  impunity;  while  on  the  other  hand  some  of  our  best 
and  truest  men  have  come  from  other  churches,  and  have 
developed  in  moral  excellency  and  spiritual  power.  We 
are  sorry  for  those  who  have  become  ''intolerably  cor- 
rupt," but  we  are  warned  by  their  experience  to  prove 
true  to  the  truth  as  we  have  received  it,  for  neither  Mr. 
Bays  nor  any  other  man  can  show  where  anyone  has 
become  corrupt  by  adhering  strictly  to  the  doctrine  taught 
in  the  standard  books  of  the  church.  And  here  let  it  be 
understood  that  these  books  contain  the  only  law  known 
to  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints.  Any  man,  no  matter  what  his  standing,  who  does 
not  teach  according  to  them  is  not  representing,  but  mis- 
representing, the  church.  We  are  not  responsible  for  the 
teaching  or  practice  of  Brigham  Young,  D.  H.  Bays,  or 
any  other  man  who  departs  from  the  faith  as  recorded  in 
the  books  that  we  have  accepted  as  containing  the  word  of 
God.  The  church  in  former  times  was  troubled  with  men 
who  "crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old  orJained 
to  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,"  etc.  (Jude  4  )  But 
John  says: 

They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us;  for  if  they 
had  been  of  us,  they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us; 
but  they  went  out,  that  they  might  be  made  manifest  that  they 
were  not  all  of  us. — 1  John  2: 19. 

We  rejoice  that  our  experience  is  similar. 

Mr.  Bays  on  page  78  gives  the  list  of  officers  that  should 
be  found  in  the  church, as  given  by  Elder  W.  H.  Kelley  on 
page  226  of  his  work  entitled  "Presidency  and  Priest- 
hood," commenting  as  follows: 


60  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

Here  we  have  the  whole  thins:  in  a  nutshell.  No  church, 
except  organized  according-  to  Mr.  Kelley's  "pattern,"  can  by 
any  possible  means  be  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  antithesis  of  this  proposition  would  be  that  any  church 
organized  according1  to  this  pattern  must  be  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Under  this  view  of  the  case,  will  Mr.  Kelley  inform  us 
just  which  of  the  seven  or  eight  Mormon  churches  having  such 
organization  is  the  genuine  church?  There  are  the  Brighamite 
Church,  the  Josephites,  the  Strangites,  the  Riirdonites,  the 
.Whitmerites,  the  Brewsterites,  and  the  Hedrickites,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  half-dozen  defunct  organizations,  among  which 
was  that  led  by  William  B.  Smith,  brother  of  the  prophet. 

This  is  bad  logic  and  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  Elder 
Kelley's  position.  The  antithesis  of  Mr.  Kelley's  proposi- 
tion is  not  that  "any  church  organized  according  to  this 
pattern  must  be  the  Church  of  Christ.'1  The  antithesis  is 
this:  That  any  church  not  having  this  organization  can- 
not be  the  church  of  Christ,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
writings  of  Elder  Kelley  here  referred  to,  nor  can  there  bo 
a  logical  deduction  made  from  his  argument  to  the  effect 
that  the  only  thing  requisite  in  the  church  of  Christ  is  to 
have  the  proper  form  of  organization.  The  conclusion  of 
Mr.  Bays  is  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  premises,  and  the 
questions  he  propounds  uncalled  for.  Nor  is  his  assertion 
true  as  regards  the  factions  named. 

It  will  be  seen  that  he  here  includes  the  Strangites  as 
having  such  organization,  while  on  page  73  he  declares 
that  Strang  made  some  changes  in  the  organization.  Mr. 
Bays  may  not  know,  but  if  he  does  not -he  ought  to  learn, 
that  neither  the  Rigdonites,  the  Whitmerites,  the  Brew- 
sterites, nor  the  Hedrickites  have  such  an  organization  as 
is  described  by  Elder  Kelley.  If  any  have,  it  is  not  simply 
a  question  of  organization.  Though  this  is  very  important, 
doctrine,  faith,  authority,  and  practice  must  be  taken  into 
the  consideration.  Mr.  Bays  has  been  in  a  position  to 
know  that  this  statement  of  his  is,  a  very  gross  misrepre- 
sentation of  both  Elder  Kelley  and  the  church.  The 
remainder  of  the  chapter  in  which  the  above  is  found  is 


RP]PLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  61 

based   upon   this  false  assumption  and  misrepresentation 
and  therefore  requires  no  refutation. 
On  pages  83  and  84  Mr.  Bays  states: 

Two  remarkable  deficiencies  have  ever  existed  in  the  Reor- 
ganized Church,  which  may,  with  propriety,  be  mentioned  in 
this  connection,  namely: 

1.  While  the  church  has  existed  nearly  forty-seven  years,  yet 
it  has  never  had  a  full  "quorum"  of  Twelve  Apostles  — the  num- 
ber usually  being  from  seven  to  ten. 

2.  It  has  never  had,  in  all  these  years,  a  Patriarch;  and  as  the 
duty  of  that  official  is  "to  confer  blessings"  upon  the  members 
of  the  church,  their  loss  can  never  be  estimated. 

These  defects  in  the  organic  structure  of  the  church. cause 
more  or  less  uneasiness  and  comment  upon  the  part  of  some  of 
the  leading  men,  and  their  fears  were  not  removed  till  April  15, 
1894,  when  President.  Joseph  Smith  received  the  following  reve- 
lation, in  which  the  Lord  is  represented  as  saying: 

"It  is  not  expedient  in  me  that  the  Quorum  of  the  Presidency 
and  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  shall  be  filled,  for 
reasons  which  will  be  seen  and  known  unto  you  in  due  time." — 
Doctrines  and  Covenants,  sec.  122,  par.  4,  page  853. 

Concerning  the  appointment  and  consecration  of  a  Patriarch, 
the  revelation  continues: 

"For  the  same  reasons  in  me  that  it  is  not  expedient  to  fill  the 
quorums  of  the  First  Presidency  and  the  Twelve,  who  are  apos- 
tles and  high  priests,  it  is  not  expedient  that  a  Patriarch  for  the 
church  should  be  indicated  and  appointed." 

It  is  true  that  for  many  years  these  quorums  were  not 
full,  and  the  people  were  more  or  less  anxious  that  they 
should  be  filled,  but  there  was  no  uneasiness  occasioned  by 
the  fear  that  the  form  of  organization  had  been  abandoned 
or  that  it  would  not  in  the  due  time  of  the  Lord  be  com- 
pleted. Mr.  Bays  either  intentionally  or  carelessly  con- 
veys the  idea  that  the  church  had  drifted  from  the  original 
plan  of  organization,  and  the  suspicion  that  this  was  his 
intention  grows  stronger  when  we  notice  that  he  leaves 
out  the  little  word  yet  from  the  quotation.  Instead  of 
quoting  it  as  it  is:  "It  is  not  yet  expedient,"  etc.,  he 
quotes,  "It  is  not  expedient,"  thus  leaving  it  to  be 
inferred  that  the  deficiency  was  to  be  permanent.  We 
would  think  nothing  of  a  slight  omission  like  this  if  the 


62  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

whole  tenor  of  the  argument  were  not  in  harmony  with 
the  changed  reading. 

On  page  85,  in  speaking  of  the  office  of  patriarch,  Bays 
says: 

The  position  was  a  lucrative  one,  the  Patriarch  receiving,  it 
is  said,  one  dollar  for  each  "blessing  sealed  upon  the  head"  of 
the  faithful. 

By  whom  is  this  said?  The  church  has  made  no  such 
provision.  The  Patriarch  has  not  been  authorized  to  make 
a  charge  of  any  kind. 

He  receives  no  salary,  but  like  other  ministers  he  would 
no  doubt  receive  donations  from  those  with  whom  he  min- 
isters who  wish  to  contribute  to  his  support. 

On  page  85  and  following  pages  Mr.  Bays  invites  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  Latter  Day  Saints  cite  1  Corinthians 
12:28  and  Ephesians  4:ll-li  as  proof  that  the  officers 
named  therein  should  continue  in  the  church,  and  then 
expresses  his  conclusion  as  follows: 

1.  While    1   Cor.    12:28   affirms   that   "God   set   some    in    the 
church,"   and   names  apostles   and   prophets,  among  others,  it 
does  not  intimate  that  such  officer's  are  a   necessary  part  of  the 
church    organization;    in    fact,    it    does    not    even     call     them 
"officers"    of    the    church,    nor   does   any    other    Scripture    so 
declare.     Nothing    is    here,    then,    to   show    that   apostles   and 
prophets  were  a  part  of  the  official  and  organic  structure  of  the 
church. 

2.  Ephesians  4:11-14  declares  that  Christ  gave  "gifts"  unto 
men,  and  among  other  things  he  gave  some  apostles  and  proph- 
ets, but  there   is   not  one   word   about   the  office  of  apostle  and 
prophet,  much  less  a  provision  to  continue  such  "offices"  in  all 
ages  of  the  world. 

If  apostles  were  in  the  church,  as  here  affirmed,  they 
must  have  been  a  part  of  the  church,  and  if  not  a  neces- 
sary part  of  the  church  organization  then  they  must  have 
been  an  unnecessary  part.  Further,  if  they  were  a  super- 
fluous part  to  the  church,  the  one  placing  them  there  is 
responsible  for  this  work  of  supererogation,  and  that  per- 
son is  God.  This  sophistry  is  hardly  worthy  a  notice.  But 


REPLY    TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  03 

we  might  inquire,  If  this  addition  is  not  necessary,  what 
other  addition  to  the  church  organic  is  necessary?  Bays 
reasons  elsewhere  that  apostles  are  not  necessary  because 
elders  may  perform  all  the  official  functions  belonging  to 
the  apostle.  Should  we  admit  this  to  be  true,  then  why 
give  the  elder  the  preference?  Why  not  say  that  the  elder 
is  not  needed  because  the  apostle  may  perform  all  the 
necessary  functions  belonging  to  the  eider?  It  is  our 
opinion  that  God  does  nothing  that  is  unnecessary,  and 
therefore  he  having  placed  both  apostles  and  elders  in  the 
church,  they  are  both  necessary. 

It  would  appear  from  the  above  that  Biys  does  not 
believe  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  apostolic  offi  e. 

So  far  as  this  controversy  is  concerned  it  makes  no  dif- 
ference whether  there  is  or  not.  Whether  you  call  the 
position  an  office  or  not  does  not  enter  into  the  considera- 
tion 'as  to  whether  the  apostle  should  be  in  the  church. 
We  think,  however,  that  Mr.  Bays  is  mistaken,  and  that 
the  apostle's  position  is  an  office  in  the  church. 

He  says  no  scripture  does  so  declare.  Let  us  see. 
Peter  in  speaking  of  Judas  says  ''his  bishopric  let  another 
take." — Acts  1:20.  Paul  says:  "If  a  man  desire  the 
office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work."  Putting 
these  together,  Judas  the  apostle  held  a  bishopric,  and 
the  position  of  a  bishop  is  an  office.  Judas'  successor  was 
to  take  a  bishopric  or  an  office.  The  several  different 
English  translations  of  the  Bible  that  we  have  examined  on 
this  point  practically  agree  in  calling  the  position  spoken 
of  in  Acts  1:20  an  office,  or  bishopric.  King  James',  the 
Inspired,  and  the  Douay  translations  each  render  it,  "his 
bishopric  let  another  take."  The  Campbell,  McKnight, 
and  Doddridge;  the  American  Bible  Union,  and  the 
Revised  Version  agree  in  making  it  still  plainer,  each 
rendering  it,  "His  office  let  another  take."  The  word  in 
the  passage  in  Psalms  from  which  Peter  here  quotes  is  in 


G4  REPLY   TO  D.  H.   BAYS. 

the  Douay  translation  rendered  bishopric,  and  in  the 
Inspired,  King  James',  and  Revised  translations  it  is 
rendered  office.  These  authorities  all  agree  that  the 
position  of  apostle  transferred  from  Judas  to  Matthias 
was  an  office. 
Paul  also  says  regarding  his  position: 

As  I  am  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office.— 
Rom.  11:  13. 

Yet  Bays  says  that  his  position  was  not  that  of  an  office, 
and  the  Christian  Publishing  House  says  that  Bays  is 
"accurate  and  reliable." 

Other  authorities  consider  the  position  of  an  apostle  an 
office. 

Webster  defines  the  word  office  in  its  scriptural  sense  to 
mean : 

A  charge  or  trust,  of  a  sacred  nature,  conferred  by  God  him- 
self; as.  the  office  of  a  priest  under  the  old  dispensation,  and 
that  of  the  apostles  in  the  new. 

Alexander  Campbell  said: 

They  were  all  co-elders,  co-bishops,  co-apostles,  as  respected 
each  other;  und  as  respected  all  other  officers  the  apostles  were 
first. — Campbell  and  Purcell  Debate,  page  14. 

But  last  of  all  comes  Elder  Bays  himself  and  contradicts 
his  own  theory.  On  page  90  of  the  book  now  under  con- 
sideration in  speaking  of  apostles  and  others  Mr.  Bays 
says: 

1.  No  such  "offices"  as  those  mentioned  were  ever  "created,** 
and  hence  never  received  "occupants"  for  the  "guidance  of  the 
churches." 

2.  Such   offices  never    having  been    created    could    not  have 
been,  and  in  fact  were  not,  established  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 

On  the  very  next  page  he  says: 

The  twelve  apostles  were,  in  their  official  character,  embassa- 
dors;  and  were  representative,  rather  than  executive  or  judicial, 
officers,  and  as  such  were  not  a  part  of  the  internal  organism  of 
the  body  spiritual. 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  65 

They  were  not  officers,  but  they  had  an  official  character. 
Well,  well!  What  next?  Here  it  is: 

If  the  office  of  the  apostles  was  ambassadorial,  it  will  doubt- 
less readily  be  granted  that  they  are  at  once  removed  from  the 
domain  of  the  executive  and  judicial,  except  in  a  manner 
purely  ex  officio. — Page  92. 

Ex  officio  according  to  Webster  means:  "From  office; 
by  virtue  of,  or  as  a  consequence,  of  an  office;  officially.'* 
So  the  apostles  held  no  office  in  the  church,  no  such  office 
having  been  created;  yet  they  acted  in  "the  domain  of  the 
executive  and  judicial"  by  "virtue  of  their  office." 
Wonderful  "children  of  Providence,"  thesel 
In  regard  to  the  provision  to  continue  the  office  of  apos- 
tle, after  declaring  that  there  is  no  such  provision,  he 
admits  that  there  was  one  precedent  in  the  example  of  the 
apostles  at  Jerusalem  in  the  choosing  of  Matthias.  But 
Bays  is  not  balked  by  such  trifles  as  this.  He  can  take 
issue  with  an  ancient  apostle  as  easily  as  he  can  with  a 
modern  one  if  it  suits  his  purpose.  Hear  what  he  says: 

The  action  of  the  eleven,  in  forming  what  is  deemed  by  some 
as  a  precedent,  was  doubtless  prompted  by  an  exegesis  of  what 
they  seemed  to  think  was  a  prophecy  relating  directly  to  the 
question  they  were  then  considering.  This  fact,  and  not  that 
they  were  governed  by  any  law  then  in  existence,  was  their 
only  authority  for  this  remarkable  transaction. 

There  is  not  even  an  intimation  that  they  were  directed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  matter.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Spirit 
had  not  yet  been  given  by  which  it  had  been  promised  they 
should  be  guided  into  "all  truth."  Hence,  it  is  by  no  means  cer- 
tain that  the  choosing  of  Matt  hi  as  by  "lot"  was  ever  accepted  and 
approved  of  God,  but  the  circumstances  tend  rather  to  support 
the  opposite  view  of  the  case.  Matthias  sank  as  utterly  from 
view  as  did  the  individual  whom  he  had,  by  accide/tt,  been 
chosen  to  succeed. 

It  may  be  unpopular  to  say  so,  but  the  writer  does  not 
believe  the  Scriptures  referred  to  by  Peter,  who  seems  to  have 
presented  the  matter  to  the  meeting,  has  any  reference  what- 
ever to  Judas  Lscariot  or  the  betrayal  of  Christ. — Pages  90,  97. 

Bays'  illustrious  predecessor,  Alexander  Campbell,  is 
against  him  in  this.  He  says; 


66  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

The  Apostles  taugrht  the  churches  to  do  all  the  Lord 
commanded.  Whatever,  then,  the  churches  did  by  the 
appointment  or  concurrence  of  the  Apostles,  they  did  by  the 
commandment  of  Jesus  Christ. — Christian  System,  pages  311, 
312. 

Mr.  Campbell  also  sustains  the  contention  of  the  Saints 
in  this:  That  there  could  be  no  officer  without  an  office. 
He  says: 

We  have  emphatically  stated,  that  the  first  point  is  to  establish 
the  office.  If  there  is  no  office,  there  can  be  no  officer. — Camp- 
bell and  Purcell,  pages  98  and  99. 

So  Mr.  Bays  in  his  anxiety  to  antagonize  the  position  of 
the  Saints  takes  issue  with  Peter  and  the  action  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  and  runs  counter  to  the  learned  Mr. 
Campbell,  whose  work  he  claims  to  be  perpetuating.  His 
presumption  grows  more  and  more  apparent  as  we  pro- 
ceed. Among  the  Latter  Day  Saints  no  one  witnessed 
what  Bays  did  not  see  or  hear!  Among  the  Christians  no 
one  fought  Mormonism  successfully  who  did  not  fight  it  on 
Bays'  lines;  even  the  honorable  Alexander  Campbell  must 
stand  corrected  when  Bays  speaks!  The  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem under  the  instruction  of  the  eleven  apostles  was  wrong 
when  doing  what  Bays  does  not  approve! 

He  gives  as  a  reason  for  believing  that  God  did  not 
approve  of  the  selection  of  Matthias  that  he  "sank  as 
utterly  from  view  as  did  the  individual  whom  he  had,  by 
accident,  been  chosen  to  succeed."  This  reason  would 
throw  discredit  upon  the  calling  of  the  majority  of  the 
apostles  chosen  by  the  Christ.  What  is  there  on  record 
after  this  time  concerning  Andrew,  Philip,  Bartholomew, 
Thomas,  Lebbeus,  Simon,  or  one  of  the  Jameses? 

Again  he  says  that  "there  is  not  even  an  intimation  that 
they  were  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  matter." 
We  are  told  that  "they  prayed,  and  said,  Thou,  Lord, 
which  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show  whether  of 
these  two  thou  hast  chosen."  This  seems  to  be  an  intima- 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  67 

tion  that  they  expected  to  be  directed  by  the  Lord  in  some 
way.      Mr.    Bays   assumes  that  Latter  Day  Saints  teac'h 
"that  the  apostles  and  prophets  are  a  necessary  safeguard 
against  every  form  of  fraud  and  deception." — Page  86. 
Then  presuming  upon  this  assumption  he  asks: 

If  apostles  and  prophets  were  designed  as  a  means  of  protec- 
tion a.irainst  fraud — to  prevent  the  possibility  of  being  "curried 
about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,"  then  how  does  it  come  that 
the  Mormon  Church  has  developed  a  greater  amount  of  fraud, 
and  its  membership  have  been  "tossed  to  and  fro,"  and  carried 
about  with  "winds  of  doctrine"  such  as  have  never  disturbed 
any  other  church  or  people?  Will  somebody  answer?  — Page  87. 

In  the  first  place,  Latter  Day  Saints  teach  no  such 
thing.  They  have  never  affirmed  that  the  presence  of 
apostles  or  prophets  would  be  a  safeguard  against  decep- 
tion and  fraud;  but  they  have  claimed,  and  do  claim,  that 
to  keep  strictly  within  the  law  of  God  is  a  safeguard,  and 
that  this  will  include  the  form  of  organization.  But  the 
form  of  organization  is  not  the  only  thing  necessary.  To 
be  entirely  safe,  all,  including  apostles  and  prophets,  as 
well  as  the  membership,  should  be  in  harmony  with  the 
revealed  will  of  God  in  all  things.  As  we  have  before 
said,  neither  Elder  Bays  nor  any  other  man  can  show  that 
any  of  the  things  that  he  refers  to  as  fraudulent  have  been 
the  result  of  obedience  to  the  teachings  of  the  standard 
works  of  the  church.  Until  he  can  do  this  all  his 
sophistry  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Saints 
teach  what  they  do  not  teach  is  the  merest  twaddle. 

In  chapter  9,  commencing  on  page  91,  Mr.  Bays  con- 
tends that  an  apostle  was  simply  an  ambassador,  and  his 
functions  being  ambassadorial  he  is  not  needed  as  an 
officer  of  the  home  government. 

He  spends  some  time  and  space  in  argument,  and 
quotes  largely  from  scripture  to  prove  that  the  apostles 
were  Christ's  ambassadors,  as  though  this  would  si-tile 
the  whole  question.  We  concede,  yes  urge,  that  they 


68  REPLY   TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

were  ambassadors  of  Christ;  but  we  fail  to  see  that  they 
may  not  have  possessed  other  functions. 

The  following  scriptures  show  that  they  had  official 
duties  to  perform  in  the  home  government — the  church: 

Beside  those  things  that  are  without,  that  which  cometh  upon 
me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the  churches. — 2  Cor.  11:  28. 

And  when  this  epistle  is  read  amonir  you,  cause  that  it  be 
read  also  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans;  and  that  ye  like- 
wise read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea. — Col.  4:1(3. 

Savins1,  I  am  Alpha  and  Ome^a,  the  first  and  the  last:  and, 
What  thou  seest,  write  in  a  book,  and  send  it  unto  the  seven 
churches  which  are  in  Asia;  unto  Ephesus,  and  unto  Smyrna, 
and  unto  Per<ramos,  and  unto  Thyatira,  and  unto  Sardis,  and 
unto  Philadelphia,  and  unto  Laodicea. — Rev.  1:11. 

And  in  connection  with  these  it  will  be  well  to  note  that 
Paul  addresses  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  two  epistles 
to  the  Corinthians,  the  Galatians,  the  Ephesians,  the 
Philippians,  the  Colossians,  and  the  two  epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  to  the  churches,  the  saiats,  the  brethren, 
etc.  And  in  defining  the  duties  of  apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  pastors,  and  teachers,  he  speaks  of  three  dif- 
ferent lines  of  duty  belonging  to  them;  viz.,  "perfecting  of 
the  saints,"  "work  of  the  ministry,"  "edifying  of  the  body 
of  Christ."  Two  of  the  three,  it  will  be  seen,  are  espe- 
cially to  the  church. 

One  at  least  of  Peter's  two  epistles  is  addressed  to 
believers. 

These  evidences  might  be  many  times  multiplied,  but 
this  is  sufficient. 

But  from  Mr.  Bays'  standpoint,  what  would  be  the  logi- 
cal deduction  regarding  the  relation  of  God's  kingdom  to 
the  kingdoms  of  the  world? 

He  states: 

This  point,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  authoritatively  settled. 
The  apostles  of  Christ  were  his  ambdKxitdorx. 

The  question  now  arises  as  to  whether  an  ambassador  is 
necessary  either  to  the  existence  of  a  government  or  to  its  per- 
petuation. No  one  possessing:  ordinary  intelligence  would 
think  of  asserting  that  an  ambassador  is  necessary  to  the  exist- 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  69 

ence  of  any  form  of  government,  however  desirable  such  a 
dignitary  might  be  regarded. 

As  well  may  we  argue  that  the  presence  of  our  ambassador  at 
the  court  of  St.  James  is  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  as  to  declare  the  presence  of 
apostles — am-bassadors  — in  the  Church  of  Christ  is  necessary  to 
its  existence.  This  government  could  recall  every  ambassador 
now  representing  the  American  people  at  foreign  courts  with- 
out interfering  in  the  least  with  the  constitutional  form  of  its 
government.  What  is  true  of  an  earthly  government,  in  this 
regard,  may  also  be  affirmed  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Hence, 
the  removal  of  the  apostles  from  the  church  could  in  no  possible 
manner  interfere  with,  or  change,  the  constitutional  form  of  its 
government. 

Viewing  the  question  from  this  standpoint,  it  becomes  clear 
that  neither  apostles  nor  prophets  are  in  the  least  necessary  to 
the  existence  and  perpetuity  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  may 
be  dispensed  with,  therefore,  without  interfering  with  its 
utility.— Pages  93,  94. 

Yes,  if  Mr.  Bays  is  right  that  the  apostles  possess 
ambassadorial  functions  only,  and  they  are  the  accredited 
ambassadors,  the  church  might  continue  without  them, 
but  it  would  be  in  an  exclusive  sense  only.  When  a 
government  withdraws  its  ambassadors  from  foreign 
courts  all  friendly  relations  and  negotiations  cease,  and 
as  a  rule  hostilities  follow. 

So  if  Mr.  Bays  would  have  a  church  without  accredited 
ambassadors,  he  must  abandon  the  missionary  work,  and 
sever  all  friendly  relations  with  the  world. 

Or  if  his  idea  is  that  the  apostles  were  ambassadors 
from  the  court  of  heaven  to  the  earth,  then  the  con- 
clusion must  be  that  with  the  withdrawal  of  heaven's 
ambassadors,  God  has  severed  all  communication  with 
the  earth,  and  there  are  no  friendly  relations  existing 
between  heaven  and  earth — a  total  apostasy.  He  must 
admit  further,  that  if  God  ever  renews  friendly  relations 
with  the  world  he  will  again  send  ambassadors — apostles 
to  the  courts  of  the  earth,  through  whom  we  may  negotiate 
with  the  government  of  God  in  heaven.  Such  are  the 
logical  deductions  from  his  own  premises. 


70  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

On  page  98  Mr.  Bays  has  this  to  say  regarding  the 
qualifications  of  an  apostle. 

To  be  an  apostle  of  Christ,  then,  these  eleven  understood  that 
the  following  qualifications  were  absolutely  necessary: 

1.  That  the  individual  must  have  seen  Christ.     "Am  I  not  an 
apostle?     Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?"     (1  Cor.  9:  1. 
See  also  Luke  1:2;  Acts  10:41;   1  Cor    15:5-8;  2  Pet,  2:10). 

2.  That  he  must  have  been  with  Christ  from  the  "beginning.''' 
Paul's  aposileship  was  questioned   on   this  ground.     Instead  of 
beinsr  a  witness  he  had  been   a  persecutor  from  ihe  beginning:, 
and  hence  was  not  acknowledged  as  an   apostle  of  Christ  until 
he    was   able    to    produce    the    "seal    of    his    apostleship;"    his 
miracles  were  unquestionable. 

3.  He  must  have  been  a  "witness  of  his  resurrection." 

Strange  that  Mr.  Bays  would  at  one  time  declare  that 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the  action  of  the  eleven  was 
approved  of  God  and  then  quote  their  understanding  upon 
other  points. 

Under  paragraph  1  he  cites,  as  seen  above,  several 
passages  to  prove  what  the  eleven  understood.  A  careful 
examination  of  these  references  will  not  disclose  the  most 
remote  connection  with  the  understanding  of  the  eleven, 
nor  is  there  a  statement  in  any  of  these  passages  to  the 
(ffectthat  seeing  Christ  is  an  indispensable  qualification 
for  being  an  apostle.  These  are  simply  historical  refer- 
ences to  events  in  which  apostles  and  others  saw  Christ, 
but  not  a  word  regarding  it  being  necessary  to  see  him  in 
order  to  be  an  apostle. 

When  we  think  seriously  about  this,  and  ask  what 
advantage  would  it  be  to  an  apostle  as  such  to  see  Christ, 
there  is  no  answer.  Those  who  saw  him  in  the  flesh  were 
no  better  or  wiser  because  of  this  seeing.  The  majority 
who  saw  him  remained  his  enemies  still;  while  those  who 
were  his  disciples  were  not  so  simply  because  they  had 
seen  him.  They  knew  he  was  the  Christ,  not  by  the  see- 
ing of  the  eye  nor  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  but  by  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  following  passages 
plainly  indicate: 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  71 

When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of  Cesarea  Philippi,  he 
asked  his  disciples,  sa37ing,  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son 
of  man,  am?  And  they  said,  Some  say  that  thou  art  John  the 
Baptist;  some,  Elias;  and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the 
prophets.  He  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am? 
And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And 
I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church;  and  the  grates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven. — Matt.  16:13-19. 

But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you:  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me  both  in  Jerusalem, 
and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part 
of  the  earth.— Acts  1:  8. 

Wherefore  I  give  you  to  understand,  that  no  man  speaking 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  accursed:  and  that  no  man 
can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. — 
1  Cor.  12:3. 

These  passages  prove  conclusively  that  it  is  only  by  the 
revelation  of  God  that  a  man  can  know  the  Christ,  and 
hence  wherever  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals  the  fact  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  men  are  eligible  to  selection  as 
witnesses;  while  simply  seeing  him  leaves  a  man  as 
poorly  qualified  as  before  seeing  him,  because  the  seeing 
fails  to  reveal  him  as  the  Christ.  In  the  absence,  then, 
of  any  statement  in  the  word  of  God  that  seeing  Christ 
is  an  indispensable  apostolic  qualification  we  see  no 
strength  in  this  defining  of  qualifications  by  Mr.  Bays. 
If  seeing  Christ  would  constitute  one  man  an  apos- 
tle it  would  so  constitute  every  other  man  who  saw 
him.  Again,  if  because  some  apostles  saw  him  we  con- 
clude that  no  one  can  be  an  apostle  without  seeing 
him,  then  to  be  consistent  we  should  conclude  that  as 
five  hundred  brethren  saw  Kim,  no  one  could  be  one  of 
the  brethren  without  seeing  him.  (1  Cor.  15:  6.) 

There  is  no  more  evidence  that  the  seeing  of  Christ  was 


72  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

a  qualification  for  an  apostle  than  there  is  that  it  should 
be  a  qualification  for  being  a  brother. 

Bays'  second  qualification  which  he  without  sufficient 
warrant  attributes  to  the  eleven,  is  that  an  apostle  should 
have  been  with  Christ  from  the  beginning.  This  he  bases 
solely  upon  the  fact  that  from  those  who  had  been  with 
the  apostles  from  the  beginning,  Judas'  successor  was  to 
have  been  chosen.  It  does  not  follow  that  every  apostle 
was  to  have  been  with  them  from  the  beginning  because 
such  an  one  was  chosen  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Bays  immediately  proceeds  to  defeat  his  own  point 
by  stating  that  Paul  did  not  possess  this  qualification,  and 
yet  there  was  evidence  produced  to  establish  Paul's  title 
to  the  apostleship. 

His  third  qualification  is  as  faulty  as  the  others;  viz., 
that  an  apostle  must  be  a  witness  of  Christ's  resurrection. 
Paul  did  not  witness  that  resurrection.  The  only  way  he 
could  be  said  to  have  been  a  witness  was  that  he  saw  him 
after  the  resurrection.  But  we  submit  that  he  might  be 
deceived  if  he  depended  on  the  natural  sight  only;  and  a 
better  thought  is  the  one  Paul  -himself  expresses;  viz., 
"that  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

Mr.  Bays  is  very  solicitous  for  a  rule  of  succession  in  the 
apostolic  office.  There  is  no  specific  and  detailed  rule  of 
succession  for  apostles,  bishops,  elders,  evangelists, 
pastors,  teachers,  or  deacons.  It  is  just  as  consistent  to 
demand  this  specific  rule  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
The  rule  is  simply  this: 

Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  3Tou,  and  ordained 
3'ou,  that  ye"  should  ?o  and  bring1  forth  fruit,  and  that  your 
fruit  should  remain;  that  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father 
in  my  name,  he  may  give  it  you. — John  15: 16. 

God  has  reserved  in  his  own  power  to  choose  whom  he 
will,  and  when  he  chooses  the  authority  is  sufficient. 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  73 

As  in  timeo  past  he  gave  these  offices  to  the  church  for 
the  "perfecting  of  the  saints,"  the  "work  of  the  ministry," 
and  "the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,"  it  seems  quite 
clear  to  us  that  until  these  purposes  are  accomplished 
he  will  continue  the  same  means.  We  think  he  was  not 
experimenting,  but  knowing  full  well  the  end  from  the 
beginning  he  chose  the  best  means  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  desired  purpose;  and  hence  will  continue  the  means 
until  the  consummation  of  the  purpose  sought. 

We  have  discussed  this  question  regarding  the  apostle 
with  only  incidental  reference  to  the  prophet,  because  the 
prophet  does  not  seem  to  be  a  specific  office,  but  a  man 
holding  any  other  office  may  possess  prophetic  gifts. 
The  First  Presidency  according  to  recent  revealments 
are  apostles.  They  are  the  chief  or  presiding  apostles. 

But  says  Mr.  Bays: 

Will  some  of  those  sticklers  for  "the  law  and  the  testimony" 
tell  us  where  the  New  Testament  describes  the  process  of 
calling  and  setting  apart  a  few  of  the  officers  of  the  Mormon 
Church? 

For  instance,  where  does  it  say  anything  about  the  "First 
Presidency,"  consisting  of  "a  chief  apostle  and  high  priest, 
with  two  associate  counselors?" 

It  will  be  interesting:  to  know  something  about  when  Jesus 
called  the  "Patriarch"  and  "set"  him  in  the  church;  and  a 
short  biographical  sketch  of  that  dignitary  would  be  very 
interesting  reading.  Who  will  volunteer  the  information? 

Will  some  zealous  defender  of  the  Mormon  theology  tell  us 
when  and  for  what  purpose  Christ  placed  "High  Priests"  in 
his  church  ?  It  might  be  well  at  the  same  time  to  give  us  a 
little  information  concerning  the  consecration  of  "Patriarchs" 
and  "High  Priests.'* 

It  will  be  interesting  to  know  when  the  Savior  "created"  the 
office  of  "priest"  and  "established"  it  in  his  church,  and  for 
what,  purpose."  What  is  the  duty  of  a  priest? — Pages  101,  102. 

So  far  as  the  process  of  calling  is  concerned,  it  should 
always  be  done  by  revelation.  See  John  15:  16;  Acts 
13:  2;  Acts  20:  28;  Hebrews  5:  4.  The  setting  apart  should 
be  done  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  those  in  authority. 
See  Acts  13:  3;  1  Timothy  4:  14;  2  Timothy  1:  6. 


74  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS 

As  for  the  duty  of  officers  we  do  not  claim  that  the  Bible 
contains  specific  instruction  regarding  the  duties  of  each, 
the  Lord  having  provided  that  they  are  collectively  and 
individually  under  his  immediate  supervision;  he  directs 
them  as  duty  is  required,  but  always  consistently  with 
what  is  on  record,  as  he  changes  not. 

Regarding  "a  chief  apostle  and  high  priest,  with  two 
associate  counselors,"  we  have  this  to  say:  When  Paul 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  he  found  three  who  seemed  to  hold 
the  chief  authority.  He  says: 

And  when  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be 
pillars,  perceived  the  grace  that  was  given  untojne,  they  gave 
to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship;  that  we 
should  go  unto  the  heathen,  and  they  unto  the  circumcision. 
-Gal.  2:9. 

The  church  was  admonished  through  Paul  as  was  Moses 
to  "make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern,"  which  was 
said  to  be  "the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things." 
(Hebrews  8:  5.) 

Some  insight  is  had  into  the  future  kingdom  of  God 
through  the  following  incident: 

Then  came  to  him  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children  with  hor 
sons,  worshiping  him.  and  desiring  a  certain  thing  of  him. 
And  he  said  unto  her,  What  wilt  thou?  She  saith  unto  him, 
(jrant  that  these  my  two  sons  may  sit,  the  one  on  thy  right 
hand,  and  the  other  on  the  left,  in  thy  kingdom.  But  .Jesus 
answered  and  said.  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to 
drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of.  and  to  be  baptized  with 
the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?  They  say  unto  him,  We 
are  able.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Ye  shall  drink  indeed  of 
my  cup,  and  he  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with:  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  my  left,  is  not  mine 
to  jrive.  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of 
my  Father.— Matthew  20:20-28. 

Here  the  Savior  expressly  declares  that  the  places  at  his 
right  hand  and  his  left,  "shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom 
it  is  prepared  of  my  Father."  This  gives  prominence  to 
three  persons,  and  if  the  church  is  to  be  according  to  the 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  75 

pattern  of  heavenly  things  there  must  be  the  quorum  of 
three  holding  the  chief  authority  on  earth. 

As  to  the  patriarch,  he  is,  as  the  meaning  of  the  word 
implies,  a  father;  and  the  patriarch  of  the  church  was  pro- 
vided chiefly,  no  doubt,  that  the  fatherless  might  have 
some  one  to  whom  they  could  look  for  fatherly  advice  and 
care.  The  Latter  Day  Saints  are  not  peculiar  in  this. 
The  Christian  Church  which  Mr.  Bays  represents  has  had 
this  officer  in  the  church,  and  it  should  be  remembered 
that  they  claim  to  "speak  where  the  Bible  speaks,"  and  to 
be  "silent  where  the  Bible  is  silent."  The  Christian  Evan- 
gelist for  December  6,  1900,  contains  an  address  by  J.  S. 
Lamar,  "delivered  before  the  Georgia  State  Convention, 
at  Augusta,  Nov.  20,  1900,  on  the  Jubilee  anniversar/  of 
the  introduction  of  the  Reformation  in  that  state."  In 
this  address  he  said  of  Alexander  Campbell: 

Venerable  patriarch  of  the  clean  heart  and  the  silver  tongue! 
Faithful  servant  of  God,  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ!  The 
world  did  not  know  him.  The  churches  whom  he  lived  and 
labored  to  bless  did  not  know  him.  Nor  will  the}7  know  him 
until,  by  the  <rrace  of  God,  they  meet  him  before  the  throne, 
clothed  in  white  raiment  and  with  palms  in  his  hands. 

But  right  here  our  Christian  friends  may  object  to  the 
application  and  say  that  Elder  Lamar  used  the  word  in  its 
general  sense  and  not  as  applying  to  a  special  office.  But 
how  is  it  with  the  following  from  the  "Early  History  of  the 
Disciples  in  the  Western  Reserve,"  by  A.  S.  Hayden,  page 
253? 

Here  I  should  speak  more  particularly  of  Father  Ryder's 
relations  to  the  church,  especially  with  reference  to  one  point. 
As  he  was  an  influential  citizen  at  the  time  of  his  conversion, 
he  was  justly  regarded  as  an  important  acquisition  to  ihe  cause. 
He  took  from  the  beginning,  the  leading  position.  The  breth- 
ren were  few  in  number,  and  poor  in  goods.  He  served  the 
church,  as  was  his  duty,  with  little  or  no  reward.  The  more 
the  church  grew,  the  more  it  seemed  to  need  him.  He  was 
first  the  eldest  brother,  then  the  father,  finally  the  patriarch. 


70  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Father  Ryder  was,  then,  the  patriarch  of  the  church, 
was  he  not? 

It  is  useless  to  treat  in  detail  of  the  several  offices  of  the 
church  as  demanded  by  Elder  Bays.  Let  it  be  distinctly 
understood  that  we  make  no  claim  that  every  detail  of 
official  duty  is  delineated  in  the  Bible.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  all  the  things  that  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles said  and  did  are  not  recorded.  John  says  on  this 
point: 

And  there  are  also  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did,  the 
which,  if  they  should  be  written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even 
the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written.  Amen.— John  21:  25. 

Doubtless  enough  was  then  given  to  guide  the  church, 
but  it  has  not  all  been  transmitted  to  us,  and  God  does 
not  expect  us  to  obey  what  we  do  not  know,  nor  does  he 
intend  to  save  us  on  any  other  terms  than  those  upon 
which  he  has  saved  others.  He  has  therefore  provided 
that  the  same  avenues  of  light  should  be  opened  to  us  that 
we  may  be  instructed  by  divine  communion  and  revelation. 
What  may  be  obscure  in  the  written  word  he  is  willing  to 
make  plain. 

Before  leaving  this  point  we  will  again  quote  from  Elder 
Derry  as  follows: 

Paul  in  defining  the  nature  and  formation  of  that  church 
compares  it  to  the  body  of  a  man.  The  body  of  a  man  would 
be  incomplete  without  a  head.  But  we  are  told  that  "Christ  is 
the  head  of  the  church;"  this  we  rejoice  to  know.  But  Paul 
also  speaks  of  the  church  as  a  bride,  and  John  speaks  of  the 
church  as  "the  bride,"  "the  Lamb's  wife."  The  bride  is 
always  a  distinct  existence  from  the  bridegroom,  and  as  perfect 
in  her  organization  as  he.  Woman  is  not  without  a  head  any 
.  more  than  man:  and  when  Paul  says  "The  husband  is  the  head 
of  the  wife"  (Eph.  5:23),  he  also  recognizes  the  fact  thai;  she 
has  a  head  of  her  own;  and  when  he  further  says,  "I  would 
have  you  know  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ;  and  the, 
head  of  the  woman  is  the  man,  and  the  He:id  of  Christ  is  God" 
(1  Cor.  11:8),  lie  does  not  ignore  the  fact  that  each  has  hisij 
individual  head.  In  fact,  as  the  head  is  the  seal  of  intelligence  j 
in  every  being,  and  because  of  that  intelligence  God  holds  every  I 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  77 

being  responsible  to  him,  it  follows  that  without  the  head  there 
could  be  no  intelligence,  hence  no  responsibility.  But  Christ 
does  hold  the  church  responsible  to  him  as  he  is  responsible  to 
his  Father.  Hence,  she  must  have  an  immediate  head  in  order 
to  be  able  to  receive  communications  from  the  great  Head,  her 
Husband,  Christ.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  when  Paul  com- 
j  pared  the  church  to  the  body  of  man  and  spoke  of  her  relation 
jto  Christ  as  the  wife  to  her  husband,  he  made  no  mistake;  nor 
iwas  there  any  mistake  made  when  Christ  again  organized  his 
church  in  these  last  days,  with  a  living  head  here  upon 
earth,  subject  to  the  great  Head,  Christ,  as  Christ  is  subject  to 
the  Father.  And  through  this  wise  provision  the  wife,  the 
jchurch,  is  enabled  to  hold  communion  with  her  husband,  and 
] learn  how  to  deport  herself  so  as  to  be  acceptable  to  him  —  "a 
glorious  church,  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing; 
but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish." 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  New  Testament  does  not 
mention  an  earthly  head,  under  Christ.  The  New  Testament 
as  we  have  shown  does  not  give  every  detail,  but  it  does  dis- 
tinctly show  that  the  church  has  its  own  immediate  head,  as 
the  wife  has  her  own  head.  Paul  says,  "God  set  in  the  church, 
first  apostles,"  and  during  Christ's  life  we  find  there  were  three 
of  these  apostles  that  enjoyed  a  closer  communion  with  him 
than  the  others,  not,  of  course,  that  he  loved  them  more,  but 
very  probably  they  were  to  be  prepared  for  greater  responsibili- 
ties. These  three,  Peter,  .Tames,  and  John  were  privileged  to 
be  with  him  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  "and  were  eye-wit- 
nesses of  his  majesty."  (Matt.  17;  2  Peter  1:1(5.)  These  three 
were  permitted  to  accompany  him  into  Gethsemane,  during  the 
hour  of  his  great  agony.  (Matt.  2(5:37.)  To  one  of  these  he 
said,  "I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
(Matt.  16:19.)  And  again,  "Feed  my  lambs;"  "Feed  my 
sheep."  (John  21:15,  17.)  In  the  writer's  opinion  this  indi- 
cated the  watchcare  of  the  flock,  and  Bays  will  please  take 
notice  that  the  number  of  those  thus  privileged  were  three: 
and  to  one  of  these  three  he  gives  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  commands  him,  "Feed  my  sheep."  We  have  no 
further  comments  to  make  on  this,  only  to  call  attention  to  the 
close  similarity  between  Christ's  action  then  in  calling  these 
three  apart  from  the  rest  and  making  them  eye-witnesses  of  his 
majesty  and  of  his  Gethsemane,  in  connection  with  the  giving 
of  the  keys,  arid  the  setting  apart  of  three  in  the  last  days  and 
committing  unto  one  of  these  three  especially,  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom.  And  I  would  remark  that  we  understand  these  "keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  the  means  of  communication 
between  the  church  and  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  who  had 
ascended  into  heaven,  and  also  the  power  to  open  the  door  of 
the  kingdom  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all  mankind. 


78 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 


Mr.  Bays  argues  that  only  necessary  offices  should  be 
retained  in  the  church,  and  therefore  apostles  can  be  dis- 
carded with  impunity  as  all  functions  belonging  to  them 
can  be  discharged  by  elders.  Mr.  Bays  assumes  without 
warrant  that  elders  can  discharge  all  functions  of  the 
apostle.  The  Bible  does  not  justify  this  assumption,  as 
elders  were  ordained  in  the  local  churches,  while  the 
apostle's  duty  is  general,  as  Paul  puts  it,  having  care  of 
all  the  churches. 

Again,  if  apostles  are  unnecessary  and  can  be  discarded 
with  impunity,  they  should  not  have  been  placed  there. 
Mr.  Bays  reflects  upon  the  wisdom  of  placing  them  in  the 
church,  though  it  is  said  that  God  set  them  in  the  church. 


CHAPTER   4. 

Apostles -Foundation  of  the  Church— The  Teeter  Board -Call- 
ing of  Ministers  -  Ordination  — Priesthood  — Choosing  Apostles 
—  Jesus  in  Solemn  Assembly. 

IN  his  eleventh  chapter,  commencing  on  page  106,  the 
weakness  of  Bays  is  very  apparent.  In  regard  to  his 
premises  little  needs  to  be  said  except  to  allow  him  to 
state  it  in  his  own  language: 

"The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John:  since  that  time 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  unto 
it."  (Luke  10: 16). 

Here  we  have  it  plainly  stated  that  the  "kingdom  of  God" 
had  its  inception  with  John.  If  the  terms  "Kingdom  of  God" 
and  "Church  of  Christ"  are  synonymous,  then  the  Church  of 
Christ  had  existed  from  the  beginningof  John's  ministry  to  the 
calling  of  the  twelve,  without  either  apostles  or  prophets. 

Since  the  church  existed  from  the  beginning  of  John's  minis- 
try to  the  calling  of  the  twelve  without  either  apostles  or 
prophets,  it  follows  as  a  necessary  sequence  that  neither  was  an 
essential  part  of  its  official  membership. 

This,  however,  is  ancient  history*  and  may  be  questioned  by 
our  Mormon  friends,  and  so  we  shall  come  down  to  a  period  of 
later  date  for  a  little  history  relative  to  this  matter,  the  authen- 
ticity of  which  no  Latter  Day  Saint  will  care  to  deny. 

"The   Church    of   Jesus   Christ   of   Latter   Day  Saints,"  was 
organized  with   six  members," tit  Fayette,  Seneca  Co.,   N.   Y., 
Tuesday,  the  Gth  day  of  April,  1830.""  '(-Sjee  Tullidge's  History,  ' 
page  75). 

This  church,  Mr.  Kelley  informs  us,  was  "regularly  organ- 
ized," at  the  above  time  and  plaCe^  Query- How  many 
apostles  were  included  in  this  organisation  with  ^'/members? 
At  the  time  this  organ \y/A\](jn  \^^^l^^c]^iir^l}^  important 
event  occurred,  namely,  the  T)rd^Wfef1on '^p^Qseph  Smith  and 
Oliver  Cowdery  to  the  ;'Melchixede^rpr4fe^tTiood."  The  prophet 
himself,  concerning  the  ordination,  sa^s 

"I  then  laid  my  hands  upon  Oliver  Cowdery  and  ordained 
him  an  elder  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
after  which  he  ordained  me  also  to  the  office  of  an  elder  of  said 
church."  (Ibid,  page  75). 

79 


80  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  highest  officer  in  the  church  at 
the  time  of  Us  organization  was  an  elder.  These  two  elders- 
Joseph  and  Oliver — at  the  time  of  organizing  the  church,  "con- 
firmed," by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  all  persons  who  had  pre- 
viously been  baptized,  as  the  history  of  the  event  shows. 
Under  the  ministry  of  persons  holding  the  office  of  an  elder, 
and  nothing  higher,  the  Mormon  Church  flourished  and  con- 
tinued to  grow  till  Feb.  14th,  1835,  when  the  twelve  apostles  were 
chosen. 

If  the  church  could  exist  and  flourish  from  April  6,  1830,  to 
Feb.  14,  1885,  without  apostles,  why  could  it  not  continue  to 
exist,  and  flourish,  and  grow,  from  1830  to  1897? — and  if  that 
length  of  time,  why  not  forever?  Why  cumber  the  church 
with  apostles,  when  the  elders  may  perform  the  work  assigned 
to  an  apostle? 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  apostles,  prophets,  high  priest  and 
seventy  are  really  necessary  to  its  proper  organization,  then 
the  church  constituted  April  (>th.  1830,  with  eldersonly,  could  not 
have  been  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  its  members,  including 
Joseph  Smith  and  Oliver  Cowdery,  were  still  "foreigners  and 
strangers  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel." 

Which  horn  of  the  dilemma  will  our  Mormon  friends  take? 
Either  is  fatal  to  their  cause.  Viewed  from  this  standpoint  it 
appears  conclusive  that  apostles  and  prophets  are  superfluous 
and  unnecessary. — Pages  10(5-108. 

To  destroy  the  church  of  the  Saints,  he  strikes  a  blow 
that  would  affect  the  church  of  New  Testament  times  as 
adversely  as  it.  would  the  object  of  his  attack.  This  is 
virtually  a  concession  that  they  are  so  nearly  alike  that 
what  hurts  one  hurts  the  other.  To  make  this  plain  let 
us  ask  the  same  questions  about  the  church  of  former 
times  that  he  does  regarding  the  modern  one.  If  the 
church  could  exist  and  flourish  without  apostles  from  the 
date  of  John's  ministry  until  the  calling  of  the  Twelve  by 
Christ,  why  could  it  not  continue  to  exist  and  flourish  and 
grow  from  that  time  on  forever  without  them?  Why 
cumber  the  church  with  apostles?  OD  the  other  hand,  if 
apostles,  etc.,  were  really  necessary  to  its  proper  organi- 
zation, then  the  church  as  constituted  in  the  days  of  the 
Baptist  could  not  have  been  the  church  of  Christ,  and  its 
members,  including  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  Christ,  Peter, 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  81 

and  others,  were  still  "foreigners  and  strangers  to  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel." 

Which  horn  of  the  dilemma  will  our  friends  take? 
Either  is  fatal  to  their  cause.  The  assumption  of  Elder 
Bays  still  increases.  We  have  already  seen  that  he 
assumes  that  he  was  the  most  reliable  witness  among 
Latter  Day  Saints,  and  that  he  is  the  most  able  among 
his  Christian  brethren  in  combatting  Mormonism.  Now 
he  boldly  proclaims  the  act  of  Christ  in  adding  apostles 
and  prophets  to  the  official  membership  oi  the  church  a 
nonessential  act. 

Passing  over  several  pages  of  sophistry  too  apparently 
absurd  for  notice  we  refer  to  his  chapter  twelve,  regard- 
ing the  foundation  of  the  church.  Mr.  Bays  occupies  two 
chapters  of  his  book  in  discussing  the  question  of  church 
foundation,  basing  his  argument  on  Matthew  16:  18,  "Upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it." 

After  much  ado  on  what  Joseph  Smith,  T.  W.  Smith, 
and  others  are  supposed  to  have  said,  he  reaches  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Bible  (Authorized  Version),  the  Inspired 
Translation,  Book  of  Mormon,  and  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
all  agree  on  this  point,  and  that  they  are  all  right  because 
they  approve  of  Bays'  opinion.  What  is  he  finding  fault 
with,  then,  if  our  standard  books  are  all  on  the  right  side? 

We  might  leave  it  here,  and  would  but  for  the  fact  that 
there  are  some  remarks  in  his  argument,  which,  if  not 
explained,  would  be  misleading.  Bays  knows  full  well  that 
the  statements  of  Joseph  Smith  or  those  of  any  other  man 
are  not  accepted  as  law  to  the  church,  and  if  contrary  to 
the  books  we  teach  that  they  should  be  rejected.  Hence 
if  Joseph  Smith  is  on  one  side,  as  Bays  affirms,  and  the 
books  on  the  other,  we  are  committed  to  the  side  of  the 
books,  and  Bays  has  made  no  point  against  the  church. 

However,  the  assertion  of  Bays  that  Joseph  Smith  and 


82  REPLY   TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

the  books  are  in  conflict  should  not  be  accepted  without 
painstaking  investigation. 

On  page  112  he  states  several  opinions  based  upon  his 
text,  and  among  others  this: 

Another  class  of  theologians— the  Latter  Day  Saints— take 
unique  ground  upon  this  question  and  affirm  that  "revelation" 
is  the  rock.  They  seem  to  derive  this  view  from  what  Christ 
said  to  Peter,  namely: 

"Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  reveakd  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
(V.  18.) 

This  revelation,  they  tell  us,  is  the  rock  upon  which  Jesus 
declares  he  will  build  his  church. — Pages  112,  113. 

After  here  stating  that  the  revelation  quoted  is  the  one 
accepted  by  the  church  as  the  rock,  he  finds  it  convenient 
on  page  118  to  state  our  position  syllogistically  as  follows: 

Revelation  is  the  foundation  of  the  church. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  revelation. 

Therefore  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  foundation  of  the 
church. 

Thus  representing  that  we  accept  one  revelation  as  the 
rock  on  which  Jesus  Christ  will  build  his  church,  and  then 
representing  that  we  accept  another  revelation  as  the 
foundation  of  the  church. 

Does  he  in  one  case  or  the  other,  or  in  both,  misrepre- 
sent us?  Or  does  he  admit  that  the  foundation  of  the 
church  and  the  rock  upon  which  the  foundation  rests  are 
two  distinct  and  separate  things?  If  the  latter  is  his 
intention,  we  hope  he  will  not  forget  it  in  the  further 
consideration  of  this  question.  We  take  it  for  granted 
that  Bays  is  consistent,  in  this,  and  that  he  accepts  the 
conclusion  that  the  rock  upon  which  the  church  is  built 
is  not  the  foundation,  but  the  solid  substance  upon  which 
the  foundation  rests.  This  is  a  distinction  which  Bays 
ignores  in  his  affirmative  argument  while  he  recognizes 
it  in  negativing  our  position.  With  this  distinction  clear 
in  our  minds,  and  conceded  by  Elder  Bays,  we  are  pre- 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  83 

pared  to  examine  some  of  his  proof-texts.  It  must  be 
also  remembered  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  work  of 
Christ  and  that  of  men.  Christ  establishes  himself  firmly 
upon  an  immovable  basis;  and  what  could  be  more 
enduring  and  impregnable  than  the  word  of  God?  Christ 
thus  established  becomes  the  sure  foundation,  the  chief 
corner  stone,  upon  which  men  may  build;  and  well  might 
Paul  say: 

Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ.  — 1  Corinthians  3: 11. 

He  can  thus  be  said  to  be  the  sure  foundation  upon 
which  we  build,  notwithstanding  there  is  beneath  and 
supporting  him  a  basis  as  firm  as  eternity — the  word,  or 
revelation  of  God.  Take  this  view  of  the  matter  and  you 
are  in  harmony  with  every  passage  quoted  by  Elder  Bays, 
and  Joseph  Smith  was  in  harmony  therewith  in  saying 
the  rock  upon  which  Christ  was  to  build  his  church  was 
revelation. 

Elder  Bays  is  right  in  his  contention  that  Christ  is  the 
sure  foundation  and  the  chief  corner  stone,  and  he  can 
make  a  strong  case  with  much  scripture  to  support  it  when 
he  confines  himself  to  this  point;  but  he  lacks  discrimina- 
tion when  he  confounds  the  character  of  Christ's  work 
with  the  work  of  man,  under  Christ's  direction.  Christ  is 
also  sometimes  called  a  rock  figuratively,  because  of  his 
firmness,  solidity,  and  immovability;  but  the  word  rock  as 
used  in  scripture  does  not  always  mean  Christ.  The  word 
may  properly  be  used  to  represent  anything  solid  and 
firm.  But  Elder  Bays  says: 

While  the  word  rock  does  sometimes  mean  Christ,  it  never 
means  revelation. 

Elder  Bays  here  assumes  the  very  point  at  issue,  and 
grossly  violates  a  rule  of  logic  in  so  doing.  He  certainly 
knew  that  some  claim  that  in  Matthew  16:18,  the  very 
passage  in  question,  the  word  rock  means  revelation.  A 


84  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

party  to  a  question  can  always  settle  an  issue  in  that  way; 
but  he  should   not   complain  if   his   opponents   refuse   to 
accept  of  the  settlement. 
Again  Bays  says: 

I  regard  it  as  a  truth  not  to  be  questioned  that  nowhere  in 
the  Bible  — from  Genesis  to  Revelation — is  there  an  instance 
where  the  word  "rock"  can  be  substituted  by  the  word  "reve- 
lation" without  doing  violence  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
passage.  But  the  noun  "Christ"  may  be  used  as  synonymous 
with  the  word  rock  without  such  results,  as  may  be  seen  by  the 
following  examples: 

"Upon  this  Christ  I  will  build  my  church."  "To  whom 
coming  as  unto  the  living  Christ."  "They  all  drank  of  that 
spiritual  Christ,"  etc.  — Page  123. 

In  the  very  passages  he  quotes,  the  word  revelation  can 
be  substituted  for  rock  without  destroying  the  obvious 
meaning.  "Upon  this  revelation  I  will  build  my  church" 
conveys  the  meaning  exactly,  as  we  think;  for  he  had  just 
been  speaking  of  a  revelation  to  Peter  wherein  God  had 
revealed  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  This  is  cer- 
tainly better  and  more  reasonable  than  to  assume  that 
Christ  intended  to  say  "Upon  this  Christ  [that  is,  upon 
this  me]  I  will  build  my  church."  To  read,  "They  all 
drank  of  that  spiritual  revelation  would  not  destroy  the 
obvious  meaning;  for  though  Christ  may  have  been 
referred  to  in  this  passage  he  was  a  spiritual  revelation 
to  the  world. 

Which  would  be  the  better  to  say,  "He  brought  me  up 
also  out  of  a  horrible  pit,  out  of  the  miry  clay,  and- set  my 
feet  upon  a  revelation,  and  established  my  goings;"  or  to 
say,  "And  set  my  feet  upon  a  Christ''?  (Psalms  40:  2.) 

We  might  multiply  these  passages,  but  these  are  cer- 
tainly sufficient.  The  following  answer  of  Elder  Derry  we 
recommend  to  a  careful  reading: 

He  tells  of  the  terrible  struggle  he  claims  to  have  had  in 
discovering  and  proclaiming  that  which  he  claims  to  be  the 
truth.  It  must  have  been  terrible,  for  we  never  heard  of  the 
"Hornet's  nest,"  nor  of  any  persecution  until  we  read  of  it  in 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  85 

his  book.  This  is  the  first  time  in  my  ministry  of  over  fifty 
years  in  the  church  that  I  ever  heard  that  the  church  did  not 
recognize  Jesus  Christ  as  the  foundation  of  his  church.  We 
have  proclaimed  that  doctrine  all  these  years,  and  have  never 
yet  been  called  in  question  either  by  church  authorities, 
ministry,  or  membership.  We  have  always  heard  it  preached 
by  the  entire  ministry  and  strongly  advocated  by  all  as  the 
basis  of  our  faith  and  hope.  It  is  plainly  set. forth  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  Holy  Scriptures;  and 
we  as  a  church  firmly  believe  with  Paul  that,  "Other  founda- 
tion can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." 
And  with  Peter,  that  Christ  is  "the  chief  cornerstone."  But 
the  question  before  us  is,  Did  Christ  refer  to  himself  as  the 
rock  mentioned  in  Matthew  10:18?  The  word  rock  is  used  by 
Christ  in  Matthew  7:  24,  25,  also  in  Luke  ft:  48.  as  referring1  to 
or  meaning  the  sayings  of  Christ.  "Whosoever  heareth  these 
sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  unto  a  wise 
man,  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock."  Here  the  word  rock 
was  intended  to  be  understood  as  the  sayings  of  Christ,  showing 
their  immutability  and  their  immovability,  as  we  are  told  in 
other  scripture,  "The  word  of  the*  Lord  ,endureth  forever." — 
1  Peter  1:25;  Isa.  40:8.  Since  Christ  used  the  word  rock  in  the 
before  mentioned  scriptures,  are  we  not  warranted  in  applying 
it  to  the  word  and  testimony  revealed  to  Peter  by  the  Father 
when  he  made  known  to  him  that  Jesus  was  **the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God"?  It  is  evident  that  Jesus  so  applied  it. 
Hence  we  are  warranted  in  teaching  that  the  revelation  given 
to  Peter  was  the  rock  upon  which  Christ  said,  "I  will  build  my 
church."  .  .  . 

The  word  of  God  is  an  emanation  from  his  infinite  mind. 
God  and  Christ  might  exist  from  eternity  to  eternity,  and  yet  if 
they  had  never  been  revealed,  nor  their  will  made  known,  man- 
kind could  have  known  nothing  of  their  existence,  character, 
will,  or  purpose,  nor  of  their  relation  to  creation,  nor  3Tet  the 
relationship  and  responsibility  of  man  to  God  and  Christ. 
(Matthew  11:27.)  The  terms  evil  and  good  could  have  no  mean- 
ing to  us  so  far  as  the  one  being  in  harmony  with  his  will  and 
the  other  in  opposition  to  the  same,  and  hence  we  should  be  in 
midnight  darkness.  Faith  and  obedience  would  be  unmeaning 
terms.  .  .  . 

Further,  the  peculiarities  of  Christ's  birth  rendered  it  impos- 
sible for  any  man  to  conceive  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  On 
this  rock  not  only  Mr.  Bays  was  wrecked,  but  millions  have 
questioned  the  immaculateness  of  Christ's  birth.  Even  the 
virgin  herself  could  not  have  understood  by  what  process  she 
had  conceived  Him,  only  as  God  made  known  the  Tact  unto  her; 
nor  would  the  revelation  of  the  fact  unto  Mary  be  siiflicieni  to 
convince  the  rest  of  mankind.  Even  her  betrothed  husband 


8(5  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

was  "minded  to  put  her  away,'*  so  contrary  was  it  to  all  human 
experience  for  a  virgin  to  conceive,  never  having1  known  man. 
And  Paul  was  right  when  he  said,  "No  man  can  say  that  Jesus 
is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  when  God  revealed 
himself  to  man  he  laid  the  foundation  for  man's  faith  in  him, 
and  paved  the  way  for  the  coming  of  his  Son:  but  after  all  this, 
if  the  fact  that  the  child  of  the  virgin  was  indeed  "the  Sou  of 
God,"  the  "Anointed  One,"  "the  Christ,"  the  "Redeemer  of 
the  world,"  had  not  been  revealed,  salvation  could  not  have 
come  unto  man,  for  that  is  dependent  upon  our  faith  in  him  as 
the  Son  of  God,  and  without  this  revelation  there  could  be 
no  faith,  and  so  far  as  our  salvation  was  concerned  Christ 
would  have  lived  and  died  in  vain.  Hence  this  revealed  truth 
?>  the  rock,  and  may  be  truly  termed  the  foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Christ;  for  without  it  there  could  be  no  church,  and 
this  revelation  must  come  unto  all  men,  for  "This  is  life  eter- 
nal, that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."  (John  17:3.)  It  was  this 
revealed  truth  in  connection  with  every  other  truth  that  God 
has  revealed,  or  shall  reveal,  that  is  the  foundation  of  all  our 
faith,  all  our  hope,  all  our  love,  all  our  righteousness,  and  upon 
which  Christ  is  building  his  church. 

We  cannot  dismiss  this  point  without  referring  to  the 
following  from  Mr.  Bays  on  page  118: 

The  founder  of  Mormonism  declares,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
the  "rock"  upon  which  his  church  is  based  is  "REVELATION." 
The  Book  of  Mormon  is  declared  by  every  class  and  shade  of 
the  Mormon  priesthood  to  be  the  greatest  revelation  of  the  ;iges. 
Being  the  greatest,  from  the  Mormon  standpoint,  and  so 
directly  connected  with  the  birth  of  Mormonism,  it  may  very 
justly  be  termed  the  foundation  of  the  Mormon  Church. 
Sylloirist  ically  presented,  the  proposition  would  stand  thus: 

Revelation  is  the  foundation  of  the  church. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  revelation. 

Therefore  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  foundation  of  the 
church. 

This  declaration  we  never  heard  nor  read  until  we  read 
it  in  "Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism/'  We  chal- 
lenge the  proof  that  every  "class  and  shade  of  the  Mormon 
priesthood"  has  so  declared. 

Now  a  word  regarding  Elder  Bays'  syllogism.  It  is 
lame  for  the  reason  that  the  first  term  of  the  syllogism  is 
distributive,  including  all  revelation,  while  the  second 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  87 

term  indicates  only  a  portion  of  the  whole.  A  parallel  to 
this  would  be: 

Fundamental  principles  are  the  foundation  of  mathe- 
matics. 

Addition  is  a  fundamental  principle. 

Therefore  addition  is  the  foundation  of  mathematics. 

Or: 

Letters  are  the  foundation  of  the  English  language. 

A  is  a  letter. 

Therefore  A  is  the  foundation  of  the  English  language. 

These  examples  will  serve  to  show  the  contemptible 
weakness  of  this  attempted  syllogistic  argument.  While 
addition  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  mathematics,  other 
principles  are  included  in  mathematics.  While  A  is  a 
letter  of  the  alphabet,  it  requires  the  addition  of  other 
letters  to  compose  the  English  language.  So  with  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  While  it  contains  a  revelation  of  God's 
will,  the  Church  of  Christ  is  founded  upon  the  principle  of 
revelation  and  should  live  uby  every  word  that  proceeds 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God." 

That  this  has  ever  been  our  position  Elder  Bays  well 
knew. 

In  summing  up,  Elder  Bays  presents  the  following 
amusing  illustration: 

It  may  readily  be  seen  that  our  Latter  Day  Saint  friends  have 
the  long  end  of  the  teeter-board,  which  may  be  the  funny  end, 
but  it  is  also  the  dangerous  one.  My  good  brother  Mormon, 
how  do  you  like  the  long  end  of  the  plank?  Does  the  altitude 
make  you  dizzy?  Don't  you  have  some  misgivings  about  ever 
being  able  to  set  your  foot  on  solid  earth  agai n ? 

Come  down  from  your  giddy  perch,  even  if,  catlike,  you  have 
to  climb  backwards  down  the  plank.  Indulge  no  longer  in 
theories  of  speculative  theology.  Never  stop  until  you  feel 
the  solid  earth  beneath  your  feet,  then  dig  down  through  all 
the  superficial  rubbish  of  modern  revelation,  and  build  your 
house  upon  the  solid  Rock,  CHRIST.  Built  upon  this  Rock,  the 
winds  may  blow  and  the  storm  beat  upon  your  house,  but  it 
cannot  fall,  "for  it  is  founded  upon  a  rock"— the  Rock  of 
eternal  ages. — Page  130. 


88  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Yes,  the  long  end  is  the  funny  end,  but  the  short  end  is 
the  serious  and  dangerous  end.  No,  we  are  not  dizzy,  nor 
have  we  any  misgivings  about  being  able  to  set  foot  on 
solid  earth.  Elder  Bays,  has  it  been  so  long  since  you 
were  on  a  teeter-board  that  you  have  forgotten  that  the 
long  end  has  the  advantage  in  coming  to  the  ground?  If 
you  have  the  short  end,  Elder  Bays,  it  is  you  who,  cat- 
like, will  have  to  climb  backwards  down  the  plank  from 
your  giddy  perch,  and  cease  to  indulge  in  theories  of 
speculative  theology.  Come  down,  Davis!  Come  down! 

Oa  page  132  Elder  Bays  misrepresents  us  in  the  follow- 
ing: 

All  ministers  not,  called  by  a  direct  revelation  from  God 
through  a  prophet  "like  unto  Moses,"  are  utterly  and  absolutely 
without  authori!}'  to  minister  in  divine  things. 

While  we  insist  that  ministers  to  be  authorized  to  admin- 
ister should  be  called  of  God,  we  have  never  said  that  each 
minister  should  be  called  "through  a  prophet  'like  unto 
Moses."1  We  have  not  presumed  to  prescribe  through 
whom  God  should  speak,  but  when  satisfied  that  the  call  is 
from  God  we  feel  authorized  to  proceed. 

Elder  Bays  thinks  "the  manner  in  which  'the  priest- 
hood' was  'conferred'  upon  Joseph  and  Oliver  is  enough  to 
condemn  the  entire  system,  and  brand  it  as  a  fraud."  But 
he  gives  no  reason  for  this  remarkable  conclusion,  hence 
we  will  content  ourselves  by  saying:  We  do  not  think  so. 

After  making  some  general  observations  upon  the  ordi- 
nations in  question,  Elder  Bays  states: 

As  John  the  Baptist  ordained  Joseph  and  Oliver  to  the 
Aaron ic  priesthood,  so  Peter,  James  and  John  ordained  them  to 
the  Melchi/edek  priesthood.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  denomination  this  is  now  called  in  question  by  President 
Ji.seph  Smith  of  the  Reorganized  Church.  President  Smith 
enters  into  a  somewhat  elaborate  argument  to  show  that  said 
ordination  should  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an  "appoint- 
ment," and  the  actual  and  only  ordination  ever  performed  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands  was  when  Joseph  and  Oliver  ordained 
each  other,  at  the  time  the  church  was  organized.— Page  134. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  89 

In  this  Elder  Bays  misunderstands  the  language  he 
attributes  to  President  Smith.  There  is  no  elaborate 
argument  presented  in  the  history  from  which  Mr.  Bays 
quotes  to  show  that  the  only  ordination  performed  in  the 
cases  of  Joseph  Smith  and  Oliver  Cowdery  was  by  each 
other.  No  opinion  is  expressed  ?,s  to  whether  the  literal 
hands  of  Peter,  James,  and  John  were  laid  on  these  men's 
heads  in  ordination  or  not.  The  explanation  was  made  as 
a  reason  why  the  writers  as  historians  could  not  take  a 
positive  position,  whatever  their  individual  opinions  might 
be.  Historians  may  have  opinions  as  to  what  was  done 
but  not  recorded,  but  are  not  justified  in  stating  some- 
thing as  a  positive  fact  for  which  they  find  no  record. 
Elder  Bays  says: 

In  Mormon  parlance  and  practice,,  how  is  priesthood  con- 
ferred? By  tlie  laying  on  of  hands,  and  NEVER  in  any  other 
way. 

This  is  correct,  and  the  history  makes  no  effort  to  con- 
ceal that  fact.  The  only  question  was:  Did  Peter,  James, 
and  John  lay  their  own  hands  upon  the  heads  of  these  men, 
or  did  they  ordain  by  directing  that  other  hands  should  be 
laid  upon  them. 

Elder  Bays  first  assumes  that  President  Smith  denies 
the  actual  and  personal  ordination  by  Peter,  James,  and 
John;  second  he  makes  a  protracted  effort  to  prove  that 
President  Smith's  position  is  wrong;  third,  having  suc- 
ceeded to  his  own  satisfaction  he  forms  his  own  con- 
clusion; and  fourth,  assails  his  own  conclusion  with  a 
ruthless  hand  as  follows: 

And  it  is  thus  rendered  reasonably  clear  that  both  Joseph  and 
Oliver  were  not  only  favored  with  numerous  visits  by  hea.venly 
messengers,  but  that  they  were  actually  ordained  to  the  Gospel 
ministry  by  the  incomparable  touch  of  angelic  hands.  O.  for 
the  depravity  of  fallen  human  nature  and  the  depravity  of  the 
human  heart!  What  presumption!  What  an  unmitigated  and 
heaven-daring  fraud!  What  an  unholy  farce!  How  dan?  these 
men  make  such  preposterous  and  unprecedented  claims? — 
Pages  138,  139. 


90  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Why  did  not  Elder  Bays  meet  the  question  as  he  under- 
*  stood  President  Smich  to  state  it,  instead  of  instructing 
President  Smith  as  to  what  our  position  is  and  then  hold- 
ing up  his  hands  in  holy  horror  at  the  man  of  straw  that 
he  has  himself  created.  What  wonderful  ''children  of 
Providence1'  this  man  and  his  production  are.  For 
stupidity  in  logic  this  surpasses  any  production  we  have 
examined  anywhere.  After  thus  stating  our  position  for 
us,  Elder  Bays  flauntingly  demands: 

Let  the  advocates  of  this  heretical  dogma  step  to  the  front 
and  defend  their  position  if  they  are  intelligently  honest  in 
what  they  profess  to  believe:  and  we  shall  not  limit  them  to  the 
Bible  for  proof,  as  we  might  very  properly  do,  but  they  may 
have  access  to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  also,  which,  as  the  Saints 
claim,  contains  the  "fullness  of  the  gospel."— Pages  139,  140. 

Bosh! 

Mr.  Bays  thinks  there  was  no  Melchisedec  priest  after 
Melchisedec  himself  until  Christ,  and  there  has  been  none 
since  Christ.  He  thinks  to  become  a  priest  a  man  must 
first  be  a  king.  He  bases  this  upon  the  fact  that  Melchise- 
dec and  Christ  were  kings,  and  concludes  therefore  that  to 
be  eligible  to  the  priest's  office  one  must  possess  this 
qualification  or  prerequisite.  He  puts  this  proposition  as 
follows: 

Two  things  are  especially  necessary  in  order  to  constitute  a 
Melchizeckk  priest: 

First.     The  individual  must  be  a  king. 

Second.     Being1  a  king,  he  rimij  become  a  priest. 

Hence,  a  priest  of  the  Melchizedek  order  is  at  once  a  king  and 
a  priest — a  king-priest. — Page  141. 

As  well  may  we  say  that  as  Matthew  was  a  publican 
(tax-gatherer)  before  he  was  an  apostle,  a  man  cannot 
become  an  apostle  unless  he  has  first  been  a  publican.  The 
proposition  would  then  stand: 

Two  things  are  especially  necessary  in  order  to  consti- 
tute an  apostle: 

First,  the  individual  must  be  a  tax-gatherer. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  91 

Second,  being  a  tax-gatherer  he  may  become  an  apostle. 

Hence,  an  apostle  is  at  once  a  tax-gatherer  and  an 
apostle,  a  publican-apostle. 

On  the  subject  of  high  priests,  we  wish  to  invite  atten- 
tion to  the  reasoning  of  Elder  Derry: 

Brother  Bays  not  only  objects  to  an  earthly  head— the  presi- 
dency; but  he  objects  to  a  patriarch,  high  priests,  and  priests. 
Paul  speaks  of  helps  and  governments.  Can  he  show  from  the 
New  Testament  that  the  presidency  and  patriarch  are  not 
meant  by  the  name  "governments/'  and  that  high  priests  and 
priests  were  not  included  in  the  "helps"  there  mentioned, 
acting  as  pastors  and  watchmen  over  different  portions  of  the 
flock?  We  have  shown  that  the  New  Testament  is  silent  upon 
many  things  pertaining  to  church  government,  and  the  divided 
state  of  "Christendom"  on  this  matter  proves  the  necessity  for 
more  revelation  from  God,  that  it  may  be  known  how  and  by 
what  means  the  church  militant  may  be  governed,  that  there 
may  be  no  confusion  in  the  church.  .  .  . 

Paul  says,  "Consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  pro- 
fession, Christ  Jesus." — Heb.  3:1.  Again,  he  is  called  the 
"great  high  priest."— Heb.  4:  14.  This  word  great  would  have 
no  meaning  if  not  used  in  a  comparative  sense;  hence  it  implies 
the  existence  of  lesser  high  priests.  Paul  further  says,  "Every 
high  priest  taken  from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in 
things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sac- 
rifices for  sins."  .  .  . 

There  will  be  "priests  unto  God"  when  Christ  shall  reign 
upon  the  earth.  (Revelation  5:9,  10.)  The  Levites  are  to 
offer  an  offering  in  righteousness  when  Christ  comes.  (Malachi 
3.)  It  is  a  settled  fact  that  Jesus  was  a  high  priest  when  in  the 
flesh,  made  so  of  his  Father,  and  he  says  in  his  ever  memorable 
prayer  for  his  apostles,  "as  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  world, 
even  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  the  world."  "And  the  glorj' 
which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  them;  that  they  may  be 
one,  even  as  we  are  one."— John  17:18,  22.  If  this  does  not 
mean  the  same  power  and  authority,  then  words  have  no 
meaning;  hence  there  were  high  priests  in  the  Christian 
church,  and  will  be  wherever  it  is  found  in  a  perfect  form, 
because  God  changes  not. 

Mr.  Bays'  fifteenth  chapter  is  on  priesthood,  but  it  is 
chiefly  composed  of  assertion,  in  which  misrepresentation 
and  sophistry  are  the  chief  elements. 

There  is  but  one  point  in  the  chapter  that  requires 
attention.  On  page  149,  after  quoting  extracts  from  a 


92  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

revelation  on  priesthood  regarding  the  transmission  of 
the  priesthood  from  one  to  another,  he  presents  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

1.  While  it  is  possible  that  Jethro  mi^ht  have  been  ordained 
under  Ihe  hand  of  Caleb  both  beinjr  contemporary  with 
Moses— it  is  simply  impossible  that  the  latter  could  have 
been  ordained  by  Elihu,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  glance  at  the 
following  table;  and  the  same  is  true  of  all  the  persons  named: 


NAME. 

WHEN   LIVING, 

DIFF    RENCE   IN 

SCRIPTUHAL 

B    C. 

TIME. 

REFERE     CE. 

1. 

(  Caleb. 

1453, 

Num  26:65. 

(  Elihu. 

1171. 

281. 

1  Sam.   1:1. 

2. 

(  Elihu. 

1171. 

(  Jeremy. 

fc9. 

442.      . 

Jer.   31  :  15; 

Matt.  2  :  17. 
3. 

j  Jeremy.  629.  1120. 

(  Gad.  1749.  Gen.  30  :  11. 

4. 

(  Gad.  1749. 

( E^aias.  700.  989.  Isa.  1:1: 

Acts  8  :  28. 


This  as  will  be  seen  is  based  upon  the  supposition  that 
the  party  mentioned  in  each  of  the  passages  referred  to  is 
the  only  man  who  ever  bore  the  name;  a  very  absurd  sup- 
position, even  though  no  other  one  had  been  mentioned. 
It  is  very  improbable  that  the  name  of  every  man  living  at 
Ihe  time  is  given  in  the  Bible. 

The  names  he  has  used  in  this  table  are,  with  the  possi 
ole  exception  of  one,  used  several  times  in  the  Bible  as 
applying  to  different  men.  There  are  at  least  three  Calebs 
spoken  of;  the  son  of  Jephunneh  (Num.  13:6),  the  son  of 
Hezron  (1  Chron.  2:18),  the  son  of  Hur  (1  Chron.  2:50). 
We  also  find  at  least  five  Elihus  mentioned:  There  was 
the  great-grandfather  of  the  Prophet  Samuel  (1  Sam.  1:  1), 
a  Manassehite  who  joined  David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chron.  12: 
20),  another  party  by  that  name  is  mentioned  in  1  Chronicles 
26:7,  the  brother  of  David  (1  Chron.  27: 18),  and  one  of  the 
friends  of  Job,  often  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Job.  Jeremy 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  9? 

is  but  another  form  of  the  name  Jeremiah,  as  can  be  seen 
by  comparison  of  Jeremiah  31:15  and  Matthew  2:17. 
There  are  at  least  eight  persons  by  that  name  mentioned 
in  the  Bible.  See  2  Kings  23:31,  1  Chronicles  5:24,  1 
Chronicles  12:4,  1  Chronicles  12:10,  1  Chronicles  12:13, 
Nehemiah  10:2,  Jeremiah  35:3.  Then  there  is  the  Prophet 
Jeremiah. 

There  were  at  least  two  Gads.  Gad  the  son  of  Jacob 
(Gen.  30: 11),  and  Gad  the  prophet  (1  Sam.  22:5  ) 

It  would  be  absurd,  too,  to  say  that  all  the  men  bearing 
these  names  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  Being  common 
names  it  is  quite  probable  that  men  bearing  these  names 
could  have  been  found  in  Israel  at  any  time  in  its  history. 
It  will  also  be  seen  that  Elder  Bays'  mathematics  is  at 
fault.  In  computing  the  difference  in  the  time  of  Elihu 
and  Jeremy  he  makes  an  error  of  one  hundred  years.  He 
might  as  well  have  had  the  benefit  of  that  one  hundred 
years,  as  in  doing  so  he  would  have  scored  a  point  in  favor 
of  his  indorsers,  the  Christian  Publishing  House,  that  he 
was  "accurate  and  reliable."  In  the  light  of  these  consid- 
erations Elder  Bays'  effort  on  this  point  seems  childish 
and  silly. 

Elder  Bays'  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  chapters  are 
regarding  the  calling  and  qualifying  of  apostles.  He  seeks 
to  show  a  contrast  between  the  manner  of  calling  in  Bible 
times  and  the  choosing  of  apostles  in  1835  and  subse- 
quently. He  claims  that  while  the  call  of  former  apostles 
was  personal  and  direct  the  later  ones  were  chosen  by 
committees.  In  a  sense  this  is  true.  Christ  once  minis- 
tered in  person,  but  when  his  earth  life  closed  his  work  did 
not  close  with  it,  but  by  accredited  ministers  Christ  was 
represented  on  earth,  the  gospel  preached,  and  ordinances 
administered  by  those  holding  delegated  authority  from 
him.  When  the  first  vacancy  after  his  death  occurred  in 
the  quorum  of  twelve  apostles,  his  accredited  ministers 


94  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

selected  the  successor.  In  doing  so  they  followed  his 
example.  He  had  sought  divine  guidance  as  the  following 
indicates: 

And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  clays,  that  he  went  out  into  a 
mountain  to  pray,  and  continued  all  night  in  prayer  to  God. 
And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples:  and  of 
them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also  he  named  apostles.— Luke  6: 
12,  13. 

So  when  it  became  the  duty  of  his  disciples  to  choose, 
they  prayed: 

Thou,  Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show 
whether  of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen. — Acts  1:  24. 

In  1835  when  men  had  been  designated  by  revelation  to 
choose  the  Twelve,  they  also  sought  the  Lord  in  prayer  as 
the  following  will  show: 

President  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  after  makiner  many  remarks  on 
the  subject  of  choosing:  the  Twelve,  wanted  an  expression  from 
the  brethren,  if  they  would  be  satisfied  to  have  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  dictate  in  the  choice  of  the  elders  to  be  apostles; 
whereupon  all  the  elders  present  expressed  their  anxious  desire 
to  have  it  so. 

A  hymn  was  then  sunsr,  "Hark,  listen  to  the  trumpeters," 
etc.  President  Hyrum  Smith  prayed,  and  meeting  was  dis- 
missed for  one  hour. 

Assembled  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  commenced  with 
prayer. 

President  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  said  that  the  first  business  of  the 
meetinsr  was,  for  the  three  witnesses  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  to 
pray,  each  one,  and  then  proceed  to  choose  twelve  men  from 
the  church,  as  apostles,  to  go  to  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues, 
and  people. 

The  three  witnesses;  viz.,  Oliver  Cowdery,  David  AVhitmer, 
and  Martin  Harris,  united  in  prayer. — Church  History,  vol.  1, 
p.  541. 

Oliver  Cowdery  in  delivering  his  charge  to  the  Twelve 
said: 

The  Lord  gave  us  a  revelation  that  in  process  of  time,  there 
should  be  twelve  men  chosen  to  preach  his  gospel  to  Jew  and 
Gentile  Our  minds  have  been  on  a  constant  stretch,  to  find 
who  these  twelve  were:  when  the  lime  should  come  we  could 
not  tell;  but  we  sought  the  Lord  by  fasting  and  prayer,  to  have 
our  lives  prolonged  to  see  this  day,  to  see  you,  and  to  take  a 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  95 

retrospect  of  the  difficulties  through  which  we  have  passed; 
but,  having  seen  the  day,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  deliver  to  you 
a  charge;  and  first,  a  few  remarks  respecting  your  ministry.— 
Church  History,  vol.  1,  pp.  542,  548. 

This  seeking  divine  guidance  has  been  the  rule  of  prac- 
tice ever  since,  when  selections  have  been  made. 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  some  of  the  his- 
torical mistakes  made  by  Elder  Bays  in  these  chapters. 
We  will  now  point  out  some  more  of  his  blunders. 

He  denies  that  Jesus  ever  ordained  his  apostles  by 
laying  on  of  hands,  but  as  this  is  simply  his  unsup- 
ported opinion  we  need  not  notice  it  further. 

In  seeking  to  contrast  the  two  methods,  Elder  Bays 
asks: 

Reader,  do  you  observe  one  single  mark  of  similarity  between 
the  methods  employed  in  calling  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  those  adopted  by  Joseph  Smith  in  calling  his  twelve?  — 
Page  150. 

We  answer,  Yes,  in  the  most  important  mark  of  all. 
Divine  guidance  was  sought  in  each  case.  Bays  states: 

In  the  former  case  the  disciples  were  not  even  knoicn  per- 
sonally to  the  Saviour,  much  less  to  be  his  followers.  (See  John 
1:46.) 

Not  so  with  Joseph  Smith.  His  twelve  were  chosen  from  his 
tried  followers. — Page  150. 

That  this  is  a  mistake  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  Luke 
6: 13,  where  it  is  affirmed  that  the  Savior  ''called  unto  him 
his  disciples:  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve."  Elder  Bays 
continues: 

To  his  twelve  Jesus  simply  said,  "Follow  me."  But  Joseph 
said:  "The  first  business  of  'the  meeting  was  for  the  three  wit- 
nesses to  choose  the  twelve  apostles,"  and  they  chose  them. — 
Page  156. 

He  here  confounds  the  invitation  to  follow  Christ  with 
the  call  to  the  apostleship,  which  were  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate events. 


96  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Compare  Matthew  4  :  18-22;  9  :  9;  Mark  1 : 16-20;  2  :  14: 
Luke  5:  10,  27,  28,  and  John  1:35-49,  with  Matthew  10:1; 
Mark  3:  13,  14;  and  Luke  6: 13. 

After  an  examination  of  these  passages  the  stupidity  of 
Elder  Bays  in  confounding  these  two  separate  events  will 
be  painfully  apparent.  But  Elder  Bays  continues: 

The  apostles  of  Christ  were  chosen  before  the  establishment 
of  the  church,  while  the  apostles  of  Joseph  were  an  after- 
thought, and  were  called  five  years  after  the  establishment  of 
his  church. — Pages  150,  157. 

When  Elder  Bays  penned  this  he  probably  had  forgotten 
that  he  had  previously  written  the  following: 

"The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John:  since  that  time 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  unto 
it."  (Luke  10:10). 

Here  we  have  it  plainly  stated  that  the  "kingdom  of  God" 
had  its  inception  with  John.  If  the  terms  "Kingdom  of  God" 
and  "Church  of  Christ"  are  synonymous,  then  the  Church  of 
Christ  had  existed  from  the  beginning  of  John's  ministry  to 
the  calling  of  the  twelve,  without,  either  apostles  or  prophets. 

Since  the  church  existed  from  the  beginning  of  John's 
ministry  to  the  calling  of  the  twelve  without  either  apostles 
or  prophets,  it  follows  as  a  necessary  sequence  that  neither  was 
an  essential  part  of  its  official  membership. — Page  100. 

He  makes  still  another  mistake  in  saying,  "The  apostles 
of  Joseph  were  an  after-thought."  The  revelation  pro- 
viding for  apostles  was  given  June,  1829,  nearly  a  year 
before  the  organization  of  the  church,  April  6,  1830,  but 
like  the  former  apostles  they  were  not  chosen  until  after 
the  organization  had  commenced.  To  witness  such  stupid 
blunders  in  a  man  whom  we  have  heard  declare  the  gospel 
of  Christ  in  power  is  painful  in  the  extreme. 

Elder  Bays  on  page  158  invites  attention  to  a  statement 
by  Joseph  Smith  to  the  effect  that  the  Lord  would  be  seen 
in  the  solemn  assembly.  He  then  gives  extracts  from  the 
account  of  the  dedication  of  Kirtland  Temple  and  con- 
cludes by  saying: 

Jesus  did  not  appear  at  the  endowment  as  Joseph  said  he 
would  do  -  nothing  but  angels. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  97 

It  will  be  observed  that  Joseph  did  not  say  that  he 
would  appear  at  the  endowment,  but  in  the  solemn  assem- 
bly. At  a  meeting  held  in  the  Temple,  April  3,  183(5,  this 
was  fulfilled,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Joseph  Smith. 
He  states: 

The  vail  was  taken  from  our  minds,  and  the  eyes  of  our 
understandinjr  were  opened.  We  saw  the  Lord  standing  upon 
the  breastwork  of  the  pulpit  before  us.  and  under  his  feet  was 
a  paved  work  of  pure  gold  in  color  like  amber.— Church  His- 
tory, vol.  2,  p.  46. 


CHAPTER  5. 

Book  of  Mormon — Revelation — Present  Conditions  —  Land 
Shadowing  With  Wings  —  Languages  of  Plates  —  Isaiah 
Twenty-Ninth  Chapter— Palestine  Past  and  Present. 

ELDER  BAYS  entitles  his  eighteenth  chapter,  "The  Book 
of  Mormon — What  is  it?"  but  devotes  his  attention  princi- 
pally to  the  question  of  continued  revelation.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  chapter  that  requires  special  notice,  as  his 
points  are  already  covered,  incidentally  or  directly,  in  our 
answer. 

Elder  Bays,  however,  closes  this  chapter  as  usual  with 
some  high-sounding  phrases  in  which  occurs  a  very  amus- 
ing expression.  It  may  be  a  typographical  error;  but  if 
so  it  is  one  of  those  rare  mistakes  that  represent  the 
situation  better  than  the  writer  intended: 

If  ministers  can  be  called  only  by  divine  revelation,  through 
what  particular  channel  must  such  revelation  come?  4iO," 
says  one,  "it  must  come  through  the  prophet,  the  President  of 
the  church."  Very  well,  but  through  which  one  of  all  the 
dozen  or  more  presidents  of  as  many  different  Mormon 
churches,  must  this  revelation  come?  When  some  advocate 
of  the  Mormon  heresy  answers  the  above  impertinent  questions 
to  the  satisfaction  of  reasonable  people,  then,  and  not  tiil  then, 
need  the}7  expect  to  mislead  thinking  people  by  such  modes  of 
reasoning.— Pages  170,  171. 

We  suppose  he  intended  to  say  pertinent. 

In  his  nineteenth  chapter  he  comes  directly  to  the 
question  and  asks,  "Is  a  new  revelation  necessary?"  He 
proceeds  to  argue  that  apostasy  does  not  annul  existing 
authority. 

He  cites  the  great  apostasy  of  the  Jewish  nation  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  ministry  on  earth,  and  assumes  that  not- 
withstanding this  apostasy  Christ  recognized  existing 
98 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  99 

authority.       His    final    conclusions    are    summed    up    is 
follows:  • 

The  foregoing  historical  facts  prove, 

1.  That  the  apostasy  of  the  masses  does  not,  cannot,  abrogate 
existing  authority. 

2.  That  authority  once  delegated   can  only   be  annulled  by 
individual  transgression. 

3.  That  so  long  as   there   remains  a   righteous   man    on    the 
earth,  just  so  long  does  the  authority   remain   to  minister  in 
divine  things;  and 

4.  That  an}'  man  holding  authority  to  minister  before  God, 
may  confer  that  authority  upon  others. — Page  174. 

With  the  first  conclusion  we  agree  with  this  explanation; 
provided  all  holding  authority  are  not  affected  by  the 
apostasy.  To  the  second  we  suggest  that  if  individual 
transgression  annuls  individual  authority,  when  trans- 
gression becomes  universal,  then  the  apostasy  becomes 
universal.  With  the  third  we  agree  provided  that  the 
righteous  man  has  ever  received  delegated  authority.  To 
the  fourth  we  say,  Yes,  provided  he  is  directed  by  the 
Lord  to  confer  authority;  but  it  is  not  reasonable  that 
God  can  be  left  out  of  the  account,  and  man  can  confer  the 
authority  to  act  for  God  on  whom  he  may  choose. 

Elder  Bays  as  usual  is  lame  in  philosophy  here.  His 
second  and  fourth  conclusions  indicate  that  authority  is 
something  that  is  delegated  by  one  person  to  another.  His 
third  supposes  that  a  man  possesses  authority  by  virtue  of 
his  being  righteous.  If  he  does  possess  it  by  virtue  of 
being  righteous,  he  does  not  need  that  another  confer  it 
upon  him.  If  he  does  not  possess  it  by  virtue  of  being 
righteous,  but  by  virtue  of  its  being  conferred  by  another, 
then  it  follows  that  unless  there  is  a  regular  line  of 
authority  from  the  apostles  down,  the  chain  is  broken,  and 
authority  does  not  exist  on  earth  until  men  are  again 
directly  commissioned  from  a  divine  source.  Hence  addi- 
tional revelation  is  necessary,  and  our  contention  is  sus- 
tained, from  his  own  premises. 


100  REPLY  TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

After  spending  several  pages  in  argument,  reasoning 
that  if  apostasy  abrogated  all  authority  then  if  the  church 
organized  by  Joseph  Smith  apostatized  all  authority  was 
abrogated,  and  hence  there  was  none  left  with  those  who 
reorganized  the  church,  but  if  apostasy  does  not  abrogate 
all  existing  authority,  then  there  was  no  demand  for  a 
rror^anization,  he  gracefully  concedes  that  neither  conclu- 
sion is  the  correct  one,  as  follows: 

But  the  warmest  advocate  of  the  "rejection"  dogma  will 
hardly  be  willing  to  accept  the  inevitable  conclusion  to  which 
his  reasoning  leads.  He  will  probabl}7  argue  that  although  the 
church  became  so  corrupt  that  God  would  no  longer  acknowl- 
edge it  as  his,  yet  there  were  righteous  individuals  whose 
authority  was  not  revoked,  and  who  therefore  were  still  author- 
ized to  officiate  and  confer  authority  upon  others. 

Yi*ry  well,  if  this  view  be  accepted  as  the  correct  one — and  to 
which  we  shall  not  object — the  rule,  when  applied  to  the  case 
of  the  first  Christians,  will  prove  beyond  question  or  doubt  that 
the  authority  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel 
remained  icith  the  church,  and  remaining,  its  ordinances  could  be 
administered  and  the  church  perpetuated.  — Pages  179,  180. 

In  receding  from  the  point  he  had  sought  to  make 
he  seeks  to  save  another  by  applying  the  rule  to  the 
primitive  church.  Very  well;  if  the  Lord  had  directed 
some  of  the  righteous  individuals  holding  authority  and 
remaining  after  the  great  apostasy  to  reorganize  the 
church  according  to  the  primitive  pattern  it  would  have 
been  a  parallel  case,  and  would  have  been  all  right;  but 
we  have  no  account  of  his  doing  so  while  any  of  these 
righteous  men  "whose  authority  was  not  revoked"  were 
living. 

Thus  in  the  economy  of  God  no  reorganization  of  the 
primitive  church  was  provided  for;  but  instead  he  author- 
ized the  restoration  in  the  time  he  had  before  provided. 
We  accept  it. 

As  a  specimen  of  Elder  Bays'  logic  we  present  the 
following: 

How  is  it  today?     Perhaps  at  no  period  of  her  history  has  the 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.   BAYS.  101 

Church  of  Christ  been  characterized  by  such  unquestionable 
deeds  of  charity  and  undoubted  personal  purity  as  at  the 
present  time. 

The  claim,  then,  that  all  authority  conferred  by  Christ  and 
the  apostles  was  lost,  and  that  no  man  possessed  it  until  Joseph 
Smith  received  it  back  from  heaven,  is  too  absurd  to  be  seri- 
ous^7 considered  for  a  single  moment. 

The  idea  that  Christ  built  his  church  upon  a  "sure  founda- 
tion" and  promised  that  "the  prates  of  hell  should  not  prevail 
aga'inst  it,"  and  yet  leave  it  without  the  means  of  self'-perpei  na- 
tion and  self-purification  is  altogether  unbecoming1  the  char- 
acter and  dignity  and  wisdom  of  the  great  Architect  and 
Master-builder.— Page  180. 

He  here  makes  an  unsupported  assertion  based  upon  a 
"perhaps,"  and  taking  this  doubtful  assertion  as  a  basis 
forms  a  far-reaching  conclusion,  and  vauntingly  parades 
such  conclusion  as  established. 

In  answer  to  this  assertion  regarding  the  present  con- 
dition, and  Bays'  query  about  the  apostasy  and  the  gates 
of  hell,  we  will  again  ask  for  a  careful  reading  of  the  reply 
of  Elder  Derry.  He  says: 

Mr.  Bays  asks,  What  becomes  of  the  declaration  of  Christ, 
"Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church;  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it?"  We  answer.  It  is  evident  from 
the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  that  this  declaration 
was  not  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  enemy  would  not 
be  permitted  to  obtain  any  temporary  advantage  over  the 
church,  or  that  there  could  not  possibly  be  any  departure  of 
the  church  from  the  way  of  truth;  because  the  scriptures  in 
other  places  teach  that  such  departure  or  apostasy  would  take 
place.  The  church  of  Christ  is  composed  of  finite  beinirs,  weak 
and  fallible,  hence  Christ  taught  his  disciples  to  "Watch  ye 
and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation."  He  made  every 
preparation  and  provided  every  necessary  means  to  strengthen 
them  against  temptation,  inasmuch  as  they  would  resist  it, 
but  he  did  not  promise  them  infallibility,  but  he  did 
promise  strength  to  overcome,  if  they  would  put  their  trust 


in  him.  Individual  moral  agency  is  the  birth 
mankind.  God  has  never  curtailed  it,  and  he  ho 
responsible  for  it.  Communities  may  fail  as 
viduals.  The  mass  of  mankind  is  not  more  in  fa  11 
individual;  the  mass  is  composed  of  the  imlivic 
each  individual  is  weak  the  mass  cannot  be  omni; 


ight    of    all 

Is  every  one 
as  inili- 
ble  than  the 
ii a  Is,  and  as 
>tenl;  hence 


if  there  is  danger  of  the  individual  falling  there  is  correspond- 


102  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

ing  danger  of  the  whole  mass  falling.  But  if  the  individual  is 
faithful  to  his  trust,  strength  will  be  given  to  enable  him  to 
overcome,  and  so  with  the  church  as  a  mass.  This  is  the  con- 
dition under  which  Jesus -said,  "The  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it."  That  Christ  and  the  apostles  were  correct 
when  they  predicted  the  terrible  apostasy,  the  history  of  the 
world  for  over  seventeen  hundred  years  affords  ample  proof. 
The  Roman  church  proclaims  the  apostasy  of  the  Protestant 
churches,  and  they  in  return  denounce  her  as  the  "Whore. of 
all  the  earth,"  "The  mother  of  harlots:"  forgetting  their  own 
maternity.  One  of  her  eldest  daughters,  the  Church  of 
England,  in  its  "Book  of  Homilies  on  Perils  of  Idolatry,"  page 
201,  says: 

"Both  laity  and  clergy,  learned  and  unlearned,  all  ages,  sects, 
and  degrees  of  men,  women,  and  children  of  whole  Christen- 
dom .  .  .  have  been  at  once  drowned  in  abominable  idolatry, 
of  all  other  vices  most  detested  of  God  and  damnable  to  man, 
and  that  by  the  space  of  eight  hundred  years  arid  more." 

Spurgeon,  the  late  great  Baptist  preacher  of  London,  says: 
"The  Church  of  England  seems  to  be  eaten  through  and 
through  with  sacramentarianism;  but  non-conformity  appears 
to  be  as  badly  riddled  with  philosophical  infidelity.  Those 
of  whom  we  thought  better  things  are  turning  aside  one  by 
one  from  the  fundamentals  of  the  faith.  Through  and 
through  I  believe  the  very  heart  of  England  is  honeycombed 
with  a  damnable  infidelity  which  dares  to  go  into  the  pulpit 
and  call  itself  Christian." — Great  Controversy,  by  E.  G.  White. 

The  Christian  Leader,  a  Disciple  paper,  speaking  of  the 
mother  of  harlots,  asks,  "Who  are  the  daughters?"  It 
answers:  "The  Protestant  sects."  Is  Bays  capable  of  suc- 
cessfully "repelling  the  unholy  charge"?  In  the  language  of 
Brother  Bays  we  ask,  "If  it  be  true  that  4a  corrupt  tree 
cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit,'  or  that  'a  bitter  fountain 
cannot  send  forth  sweet  water/  then,  what  must  be  said  of 
the  tree  that  has  yielded  such  an  abundant  harvest  of  corrupt 
fruit,  or  of  the  fountain  from  which  has  flowed  the  bitter 
waters  of  vice  and  corruption,"  as  those  coming  from  the 
mother  of  harlots  and  her  daughters?  "Dost  thou  like  the 
picture?" 

But  Bays  in  his  burning  desire  to  curry  favor  with  the 
daughters  of  Babylon  says:  "Perhaps  at  no  period  of  her 
history  has  the  Church  of  Christ  been  characteri/ed  by  such 
unquestionable  deeds  of  charity  and  undoubted  personal  purity 
as  at  the  present  time."— Paspe  180.  While  a  noted  author  of 
the  Campbellite  sect  says,  "There  are  more  sects  now  than  in 
any  other  acre  of  the  world.  Still  there  is  more  unbelief,  more 
sin,  more  rebellion  against  God.  Surely  the  legs  of  the  lame  are 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  103 

not  equal."— The  Great  Controversy,  by  Ashley  8.  Johnson, 
LL.  D  ,  p.  131. 

Verily,  if  "the  legs  of  the  lame"  had  been  "equal,"  these  two 
noted  authors  would  have  agreed,  but  they  are  far  apart. 

It  is  far  from  pleasant  to  point  out  the  follies  of  men;  but 
when  their  many  contradictions  are  so  glaring,  while  they 
claim  to  be  teaching  the  same  truths,  it  is  necessary  that  their 
eyes  should  be  opened  to  their  many  inconsistencies.  Is  all 
this  mass  of  corruption,  as  the  above  writers  confess,  accepta- 
ble to  God?  And  yet  Mr.  Rays  affects  holy  horror  at  the  state- 
ment of  Christ  to  Joseph  Smith. 

We  will  present  one  more  testimony  from  his  own  sect  in 
addition  to  what  we  gave  from  its  founder  in  our  first  chapter. 
On  page  133  of  "The  Great  Controversy,"  published  by  the 
press  of  Ogden  Brothers  &  Co..  Knoxvil'le,  Tennessee,  Ashley 
S.  Johnson,  LL.  D.,  declares  "Methodism  is  not  the  gospel;" 
"Baptist  doctrine  is  not  the  gospel;"  "Presbyterianism  is  not 
the  gospel;"  "Universalism  is  not  the  gospel;"  "The  same 
•argument  may  be  applied  to  many  of  the  religious  orders  in 
Christendom  with  the  same  results  in  every  particular." 

In  addition  to  the  above  we  invite  attention  to  the 
following  from  Alexander  Campbell: 

If  Christians  were  and  may  be  the  happiest  people  that  ever 
lived,  it  is  because  they  live  under  the  most  gracious  institu- 
tion ever  bestowed  on  men.  The  meaning  of  this  institution 
has  been  buried  under  the  rubbish  of  human  traditions  for  hun- 
dreds of  years.  It  was  lost  in  the  dark  ages,  and  has  never 
been,  till  recently,  disinterred.  Various  efforts  have  been 
made,  and  considerable  progress  attended  them;  but  since  the 
Grand  Apostasy  was  completed,  till  the  present  generation,  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  has  not  been  laid  open  to  mankind  in  its 
original  plainness,  simplicity,  and  majesty.  A  veilin  reading 
the  New  Institution  has  been  on  the  hearts  of  Christians,  as 
Paul  declares  it  was  upon  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  in  reading-  the 
Old  Institution  towards  the  close  of  that  economy. — The  Chris- 
tian System,  p.  180. 

A.  Campbell  thinks  the  apostasy  was  complete,  Bays 
thinks  not.  Who  represents  our  Christian  friends,  Camp- 
bell or  Bays? 

Elder  Bays'  twentieth  chapter  purports  to  be  a  state- 
ment of  our  position  regarding  the  Book  of  Mormon.  He 
quotes  largely  from  Elders  W.  W.  Blair  and  W.  H.  Kelley, 
and  puts  his  own  construction  upon  their  statements.  It 
will,  we  think,  be  entirely  unnecessary  to  follow  him  through 


104  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

his  wanderings.  We  will  simply  ask  the  reader  to  read 
carefully  the  statements  of  Elders  Blair  and  Kelley,  allow- 
ing1 them  to  speak  for  themselves  without  considering 
Elder  Bays'  interpretation  of  their  meaning. 

His  twenty-first  chapter  is  devoted  mostly  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  Isaiah  18:  1,  2.  He  attempts  to  refute  the 
position  taken  by  some  of  the  elders  that  the  land 
* 'shadowing  with  wings"  is  America;  and  concludes  as 
follows: 

If  the  country  described  in  Isaiah  18:1,  as  "the  land  shadow- 
ing with  win«rs,"  be  America,  and  if  the  29th  chapter  relates  to 
events  that  were  to  transpire  on  this  continent,  and  which,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  did  take  place  as  predicted,  then  all  candid  peo- 
ple will  readily  concede  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is 
probably  true. 

But  If  the  "land  shadowing1  with  winds''  is  shown  to  be  not 
the  land  of  America,  but  some  other  land,  and  if  it  shall  tran- 
spire that  the  events  described  in  the  29th  chapter  of  Isaiah 
relate  not  to  the  people  of  ancient  America,  but  to  the  people  of 
Israel,  then  the  Book  of  Mormon  cannot  be  true,  and  Latter 
Day  Saints  should  frankly  admit  the  fact,  confess  their  error, 
and  openly  renounce  the  heres3r. — Pages  191,  192. 

This  is  a  far-fetched  conclusion.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
does  not  stand  or  fall  upon  any  interpretation  of  these 
prophecies.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon thought  they  discovered  in  these  passages  predictions 
foretelling  the  coming  forth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
have  so  interpreted  and  used  them  in  presenting  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  not  as  a  basis  upon  which  the  book  rests,  but 
as  corroborative  proof  of  the  truth  of  its  claims.  Should 
he  prove  that  this  exegesis  is  incorrect  he  will  of  course 
destroy  the  effect  of  this  evidence,  but  he  has  by  no  means 
proven  the  Book  of  Mormon  false.  The  claims  of  the  book 
itself  remain  to  be  disposed  of,  whether  we  are  right  in 
applying  certain  prophecies  to  it  and  the  land  of  America 
or  not.  Elder  Bays,  however,  does  not  state  the  case 
correctly  when  he  says: 

The  Book  of  Mormon,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  professes  to 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  105 

contain  the  "written  history"  of  this  new  Ariel.  The 
"Nephites"  were  a  people  "terrible  from  their  beginning 
hitherto"  (Isa.  18:2),  but  were  exterminated  by  their  more 
wicked  brethren,  the  "Lamanites,"  about  A.  D.  420.— Page  191. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  makes  no  such  claim  regarding 
Isaiah  18:2,  nor  have  we  ever  heard  any  representative 
of  the  church  so  present  it. 

Elder  Bays  states  on  page  192,  that  the  "rivers  of 
Ethiopia"  referred  to  in  the  passage  "are  the  rivers  of 
Africa,  the  Nile  and  its  tributaries."  But  his  final  con- 
clusions are: 

It  is  thus  shown  to  be  simply  impossible  that  America  can 
be  "the  land  shadowing-  with  wings,"  for  the  very  cogent 
reason  tha.t  the  land  thus  described  lies  SOUTH  of  Palestine, 
while  America,  as  every  schoolboy  knows,  is  directly  west. 

No  amount  of  sophistry  or  special  pleading  can  change  the 
facts  of  geography  involved  in  this  question,  and  so  all  this  fine- 
spun theory,  together  with  the  fabric  reared  upon  it,  falls  to 
the  ground  a  hopeless  mass  of  ruin,  never  again  to  be  recon- 
structed.— Page  193. 

Both  of  these  statements  are  wrong.  Ethiopia  is  not 
directly  south  nor  is  America  directly  west.  Parts  of 
Ethiopia  may  have  been  directly  south,  and  part  of 
America  is  directly  west.  Starting  from  Palestine  to  cross 
the  "rivers  of  Ethiopia,"  conceded  by  Bays  to  be  the  Nile 
and  its  tributaries,  you  would  go  neither  directly  west  nor 
directly  south.  To  cross  the  Nile  you  must  go  southwest. 
This  would  of  course  place  you  in  Africa;  but  starting  at 
Jerusalem  and  crossing  at  a  point  near  Cairo  and  continu- 
ing in  direct  course  you  would  land  in  South  America  in  a 
direct  line  between  Jerusalem  and  where  the  Nephites 
landed.  If,  then,  both  Africa  and  America  were  "beyond 
the  rivers  of  Ethiopia,"  the  question  would  not  be  settled 
by  appeal  to  the  "facts  of  geography."  As  this  is  the  only 
point  raised  by  Elder  Bays  against  the  theories  of  some  on 
this  passage,  he  has  not  only  failed  to  make  his  point 
against  this  interpretation,  but  he  is  as  far  from  the  real 


106  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

issue  as  he  would  be  from  the  River  Nile  were  he  to  travel 
due  south  from  Jerusalem. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  what  the  boundaries  of 
Ethiopia  were,  as  various  regions  at  different  times  were 
known  by  that  name  as  all  authorities  will  attest;  but  the 
original  signification  of  the  word  was  very  broad,  as  the 
following  definitions  will  show: 

Ethiopia,  the  Biblical  Kush.  Originally,  all  the  nations 
inhabiting  the  southern  part  of  the  globe,  as  known  to  the 
ancients;  or  rather  all  men  of  dark-brown  or  black  color,  were 
called  Ethiopians. — Chambers's  Encyclopaedia. 

Ethiopia,  ...  a  name  given  by  ancient  geographers  to  the 
regions  situated  S.  of  Egypt  and  Libya.  The  name  Ethiopians 
was  originally  applied  by  the  Greeks  to  all  the  peoples  who 
lived  in  the  soul  hern  parts  of  the  known  world,  including  the 
dark-colored  natives  of  India.—  Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopaedia. 

Probably  in  the  days  of  Isaiah  this  broad  meaning  was 
attached  to  the  word,  hence  "beyond  the  rivers  of 
Ethiopia"  would  suggest  a  land  beyond  the  southern  parts 
of  the  known  world,  so  America  is  at  once  suggested  to  the 
mind.  There  is  another  interpretation  of  which  this 
passage  is  susceptible  from  a  scriptural  standpoint.  In 
Revelation  17: 1  John  speaks  of  a  character  "that  sitteth 
upon  many  waters."  The  angel  interprets  this  vision  and 
in  the  fifteenth  verse  says: 

The  waters  which  thou  sawest,  where  the  whore  sitteth,  are 
peoples,  and  multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues. 

Applying  the  angel's  interpretation  to  this  passage,  the 
rivers  of  water  would  mean  peoples,  multitudes,  nations, 
and  tongues.  A  land,  then,  beyond  the  "rivers  of 
Ethiopia"  would  be  beyond  the  peoples,  multitudes, 
nations,  and  tongues  of  the  then  known  southern  part 
of  the  world.  Again  the  mind  is  carried  across  the 
Atlantic  or  Pacific  to  America.  It  makes  no  difference, 
then,  whether  we  interpret  the  rivers  of  Ethiopia  to  be 
literal  rivers,  or  whether  in  harmony  with  the  angel's 
interpretation  we  interpret  them  to  mean  peoples,  multi- 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  107 

tudes,  nations,  and  tongues,  Elder  Bays  is  wrong,  and 
either  interpretation  points  to  America  as  the  "land 
beyond  the  rivers  of  Ethiopia." 

His  twenty-second  chapter  is  devoted  to  a  consideration 
of  Isaiah  twenty-ninth  chapter,  in  connection  with  the 
claims  made  for  the  Book  of  Mormon  by  its  advocates. 
As  usual  he  commences  by  misrepresenting  the  case  under 
consideration.  He  states: 

If  these  "plates"  were  written  in  Egyptian,  Arabic,  Assyrian 
and  Aramaic,  and  were  translated  by  a  man  wholly  ignorant  of 
these  languages,  it  would  amount  to  an  argument  absolutely 
unanswerable;  and  this  is  exactly  what  it  is  claimed  has  been 
done. 

Upon  the  truthfulness  of  this  claim  depend  the  veracity  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  prophetic  character  of  Joseph 
Smith,  its  pretended  translator. — Page  195. 

This  assertion  is  without  foundation  in  truth.  No  claim 
has  been  made  by  the  advocates  of  the  book  that  it  was 
written  in  the  languages  mentioned,  and  so  his  conclusion 
based  upon  the  claim  is  worthless.  In  speaking  of  Isaiah 
twenty-ninth  chapter  he  says: 

The  Saints  believe  that  the  "coming  forth  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,"  as  they  term  it,  completely  and  most  perfectly 
fulfills  this  prophecy  in  every  minute  particular.  If  it  does, 
then  the  Saints  are  right,  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  true;  but 
if  they  are  wrong  in  their  exegesis,  the  book  cannot  be  a  revela- 
tion from  God.  — Page  198. 

This  is  another  gross  misrepresentation.  The  Saints  do 
not  believe  that  this  chapter  was  completely  and  perfectly 
fulfilled  in  every  minute  particular  in  the  coming  forth  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  We  see  much  more  in  it.  We  do 
think  that  a  book  read  by  an  unlearned  man  is  referred  to, 
and  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  circumstances 
connected  with  it  harmonize  with  the  prediction.  Bat  the 
idea  that  if  we  are  wrong  in  our  exegesis  "the  book  cannot 
be  a  revelation  from  God"  is  decidedly  silly.  The  position 
that  any  book  or  principle  depends  upon  the  correctness 
of  the  exegesis  of  its  supporters  is  not  logic,  it  is  trash. 


108  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Elder  Bays  in  this  connection  proceeds  to  give  his 
exegesis  of  this  chapter,  and  claims  that  "every  line  of 
this  wonderful  prophecy  had  its  complete  accomplish- 
ment" in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Shall  we  say  that  if  Bays  is  wrong  in  his  exegesis  Nebu- 
chadnezzar could  not  have  destroyed  Jerusalem?  If  Elder 
Bays'  philosophy  is  right,  then  the  moment  a  man  takes 
an  untenable  position  in  defense  of  the  Bible  it  proves  that 
the  Bible  cannot  be  a  revelation  from  God. 

That  Elder  Bays  is  wrong  in  the  following  conclusion 
will  need  no  argument.  He  states: 

From  the  foresroing  summary  of  the  principal  points  of  this 
prophecy,  it  is  shown  most  conclusively  that  the  prediction  of 
every  event  is  made  of  Jerusalem  and  her  people,  otherwise  the 
"Inspired  Translation"  is  a  failure  and  a  fraud.  As  lovers  of 
truth,  and  as  fair  and  unbiased  students  of  prophecy  and 
Biblical  history,  \ve  are  forced  to  the  undeniable  conclusion 
that  ev*ery  line  of  this  wonderful  prophecy  had  its  complete 
accomplishment  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Israelitish 
people  in  the  utter  destruction  of  their  beloved  city  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, king  of  Babylon,  some  588  years  before  our  era, 
and  124  years  after  the  prediction  was  made.— Pages  202,  203. 

Isaiah  twenty-ninth  chapter  contains  the  following  pre- 
diction: 

Is  it  not  yet  a  very  little  while,  and  Lebanon  shall  be  turned 
into  a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  shall  be  esteemed  as 
a  forest?— Verse  17. 

Elder  Bays  in  summing  up  the  events  predicted  in  this 
chapter  as  he  does  on  pages  199  and  200,  leaves  this  out. 
He  will  hardly  claim  that  Lebanon  was  turned  into  a  fruit- 
ful field  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 

But  in  the  latter  times  such  has  been  the  case.  Though 
authors  differ  in  regard  to  the  former  fertility  of  the  land, 
all  agree  that  the  country  was  desolate  for  many  years, 
whether  from  the  lack  of  rain  or  because  of  want  of  care. 
The  following  is  from  Palest ina  for  June,  1897,  a  Jewish 
paper  published  in  London,  England,  and  is  an  extract 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  109 

from  a  sermon  preached  in  Birmingham,  England,  May  29, 
1897,  by  Rev.  G.  J.  Emanuel: 

Six  hundred  and  thirty  years  ago,  Nachmanides,  a  name 
illustrious  in  Jewish  literature,  went  to  the  Holy  Land  at  the 
age  of  seventy  years,  and  this  is  how  he  describes  Palestine  and 
Jerusalem:  "Great  is  the  solitude  and  great  the  wastes,  and  to 
characterize  it  in  short,  the  more  sacred  the  places,  the  greater 
their  desolation.  Jerusalem  is  more  desolate  than  the  rest  of 
the  country.  In  all  the  city  there  is  but  one  resident  inhabit- 
ant, a  poor  dyer,  persecuted,  oppressed,  and  despised.  At  his 
house  gather  great  and  small,  when  they  can  fret  the  Ten  Men 
(Minyan).  They  are  wretched  folk  without  occupation  and 
trade,  piljrrims  and  begjrars,  though  the  fruit  of  the  land  is  still 
magnificent  and  the  harvests  rich.  It  indeed  is  still  a  blessed 
country,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  Oh!  I  am  the  man  who 
has  seen  affliction  (Lamentations  8,  1).  I  am  banished  from  my 
table,  far  removed  from  friend  and  kinsman,  and  too  long  is  the 
distance  to  meet  again.  I  have  left  my  family,  I  have  forsaken 
my  house.  There,  with  my  sons  and  daughters,  and  with  the 
sweet  and  dear  grandchildren,  whom  I  have  brought  up  on  my 
knees,  I  left  also  my  soul.  My  heart  and  my  eyes  will  dwell 
with  them  forever.  But  the  loss  of  all  these  is  compensated  bv 
having  now  the  joy  of  being  a  day  in  thy  courts,  O  .Jerusalem".' 
visiting  the  ruins  of  thy  temple  and  cr\Ting  over  thy  ruined 
sanctuary.  There  I  caress  thy  stones,  I  fondle  thy  dust,  I  weep 
over  thy  ruins.  May  He  who  has  permitted  us  to  see  Jerusalem 
in  her  desertion  bless  us  to  behold  her  again  built  up  and 
restored  when  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  return  to  her." 

So  spake  Nachmanides  in  the  year  5027.  We  are  now  in  the 
year  5057.  How  different  is  the  sight  which  now  greets  the  eye 
in  Jerusalem!  Nachmanides  found  but  one  of 'our  race  per- 
manently residing  there.  There  are  this  day  many  thousands. 
In  the  house  of  that  one  man  public  prayers  were  said  when 
the  Ten  could  be  got  together.  Now  synagogues  great  and 
small  abound.  Shall  we  then  not  believe  that  Zion  will  be 
rebuilt  in  the  sense  that  the  land  of  our  fathers  shall  be  our 
land  again.  .  .  . 

If  we  want  our  faith  stimulated,  if  we  would  see  actual  steps 
taken  towards  the  restoration  of  our  people  to  their  old  home, 
we  must  go  away  from  the  holy  cities — Jerusalem,  Hebron, 
Safed,  Tiberias.  We  must  leave  the  cities  and  go  to  the  land. 
There  is  vitality  there,  and  work  and  hope.  There  can  be  seen 
schools,  industries,  colonies.  A  mile  outside  the  Jaffa  gate  at 
Jerusalem  is  the  school  presided  over  by  Nissim  Behar.  The 
boys  learn  languages,  but  also  carpentering,  cabinet-making, 
metal  work,  coach-making.  There  they  make  or  repair  all 
manner  of  machines,  pumps,  coffee  and  flour  mills,  sewing  and 


110  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

weighing  machines,  and  to  show  you  that  civilization  is  making 
way  in  Palestine,  bicycles  too.  The  pupils  of  this  school  find 
employment  all  over  the  East.  Near  the  city  of  Jaffa  is  an 
agricultural  school  "Mikveh  Israel"(the  Hope  of  Israel),  founded 
by  Charles  Netter  twenty-seven  years  ago.  There,  besides 
languages,  mathematics,  and  chemistry,  the  lads  learn  agricul- 
ture, they  grow  oranges,  vines,  fruits,  corn.  They  make  their 
own  wine,  most  excellent,  and  make  their  own  barrels  Fifty 
of  the  past  pupils  are  officers  in  various  colonies;  fifty  are 
proprietors  of  their  own  lands.  On  the  colonies  of  Baron 
Rothschild  and  those  recently  established  by  the  Chovevi  Zion 
Associations  many  hundreds,  I  shall  not  exaggerate  if  I  say 
thousands,  are  working,  growing  corn  and  all  fruits,  making 
wine  in  large  quantities,  cultivating  mulberry  trees,  rearing 
silkworms,  and  spinning  silk,  manufacturing  perf;imes.  In 
addition  to  these  large  colonies  actually  established,  tracts  of 
land  are  held  by  Baron  Rothschild  which  gradually  will  be 
brought  under  cultivation.  Shall  we  then  not  hope  and 
believe? 

When  solitary  pilgrims  traveled  there,  to  kiss  the  stones,  to 
embrace  the  dust  and  to  die,  our  people  living  then,  if  living  it 
could  be  called,  in  hourly  danger  of  death,  believed  that  Pales- 
tine would  again  be  peopled  by  the  race  of  Israel!  Shall  we 
then  doubt,  we  who  live  in  freedom,  respected,  prosperous, 
able  at  our  ease  to  go,  as  pleasure-seekers,  and  see  for  ourselves, 
and  to  behold  with  rejoicing  the  work  of  restoration  well 
begun,  and  waiting  only  our  united  help  to  increase  it  and  make 
it  more  successful.  O  brethren!  the  thoughtful  and  the  religious 
of  all  nations  believe  that  the  land  of  Israel  is  destined  to  be 
Israel's  again.  Are  we  only  to  doubt,  and  question,  and  deny? 
We  all  spend  so  much  on  ourselves,  we  all  waste  so  much,  shall 
we  not  spare  something  for  this  good  work?  If  the  tens  of 
thousands  of  our  race,  all  the  world  over,  who  enjoy  every 
luxury,  if  the  hundreds  of  thousands  who  are  self-support  ing 
and  have  something  to  spare  would  combine,  it  would  not  be 
long  before  the  land  of  Israel  would  be  giving  sustenance  to 
thousands  of  Jewish  agriculturalists,  living  as  in  times  of  yore, 
each  man  under  his  own  vine  and  his  own  fig-tree.  Understand 
me.  With  the  united  help  of  Israelites,  Palestine  will  in  time 
be  filled  with  flourishing  communities  of  our  people,  no  longer 
massed  in  cities,  no  longer  recipients  of  charitable  gifts,  but 
spread  over  the  land,  a  brave,  sturdy  body  of  peasant  agricul- 
turalists, feeding  their  flocks,  cultivating  their  fields,  tending 
their  vineyards,  gathering  in  their  fruits,  and  prosperous, 
contented,  happy.  This  will  be.  God  has  said  it.  "The  land 
is  not  sold  in  perpetuity.  The  land  is  mine,  and  I  have  given 
it  to  the  children  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob." 

Though   this   writer  Nachmanides   differs    from    other 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  Ill 

authors  regarding  the  richness  of  the  harvests,  he  agrees 
that  desolation  had  come  to  the  land,  which  he  attributes 
to  desertion.  But  how  different  the  situation  now  as 
described  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Emanuel. 

The  Palestina  for  September,  1897,  in  describing  the 
"Judaeo-Pcilestinian  Exhibition  at  Hamburg,"  says: 

The  exhibition  was  opened  with  much  solemnity  on  the  29th 
of  June,  amidst  the  concourse  of  a  number  of  distinguished 
guests,  including  representatives  of  the  general  exhibition,  the 
promoters  of  the  enterprise,  the  leaders  of  the  Jewish  congre- 
gation, as  also  representatives  of  the  local  press.  The  visitors, 
who  minutely  inspected  the  exhibits,  were  conducted  over  the 
place  by  the  members  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Glucksmann,  late 
a  pupil  of  the  agricultural  school  at  Jaffa,  supplying  the  neces- 
sary explanations.  Every  guest  received  a  copy  of  Mr.  Ham- 
bus's  interesting  pamphlet  on  "the  rise  and  present  condition 
of  the  Jewish  villages  in  Palestine." 

The  exhibition  was  opened  to  the  public  at  one  o'clock,  and 
the  whole  afternoon  and  evening  streams  of  visitors  poured  in. 

The  exhibition  presents  a  splendid  view.  The  entrance  to  the 
building  forms  the  representation  of  a  colonist's  cottage.  On 
passing,  the  visitor  is  surprised  by  the  view  of  a  diorama,  show- 
ing in  the  foreground  a  street  of  one  of  the  colonies,  in  the 
background  a  portion  of  Jerusalem;  palm  trees,  olive  trees, 
orange  trees,  almond  trees,  and  pomegranates  appear  in  full 
bloom.  The  space  to  the  right  is  occupied  by  an  exhibition  of 
cotton  textures,  manufactured  by  the  pupils  of  the  agricultural 
school  at  Jaffa;  by  silkworm-cocoons,  silks,  carpets,  and  a 
splendid  array  of  carvings  in  olive  and  cedarwood.  The  left  is 
reserved  for  the  exhibition  of  all  sorts  of  field  produce,  as 
wheat,  barley,  sesame,  durrah,  lupines,  peas,  beans,  lentils,  and 
several  varieties  of  excellent  potatoes  Lower  down,  there  are 
samples  of  oranges,  honey,  olive  oil,  eau-de-cologne,  various 
sorts  of  wine,  grapes,  liquors,  jams,  etc.  It  was  impossible  to 
exhibit  young  vines,  for  reason,  that  there  exists,  as  yet,  no 
convention  with  Turkey  in  regard  to  precautionary  measures 
•against  phyloxera.  The  growth  of  asparagus  was,  in  the  Jew- 
ish colonies,  only  commenced  four  years  ago;  yet,  the  samples 
prove  a  careful  treatment,  and  promise  good  results  for  the 
future. 

Most  interesting  are  the  above-mentioned  large  trees.  Mr. 
Gluckmann,  on  leaving  Jaffa  on  the  16th  of  May,  took  with  him 
twenty-four  trees  from  the  Jewish  villages  of  Rishon  L'Zion 
ind  Ekron.  On  being  shipped,  a  splendid  olive  tree  unfortu- 
nately fell  into  the  sea.  The  trees  were  first  transported  to 
Alexandria,  where  they  had  to  remain  for  some  time,  till  they 


112  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

were  despatched  to  Hamburg  by  the  steamer  Rhodes.  When 
they  were  still  in  Alexandria,  a  large  concourse  of  people 
assembled  at  the  harbor  every  day  for  the  purpose  of  admiring 
them.  They  suffered,  of  course,  somewhat  during  their  transit 
*  from  the  colonies  to  the  coast,  the  shipping  at  Jaffa,  and  the 
re-shipping  at  Alexandria,  as  also  from  sea-water.  But  Mr. 
Gluckmann's  precautions  and  constant  care  triumphed  over  all 
difficulties.  The  pomegranate,  ethrog  (citron),  and  pineapple 
trees  are  in  full  bloom,  the  olive,  jucca,  orange,  and  palm  trees 
show  a  beautiful  and  fresh  green'  foliage.  The  local  press  is 
profuse  in  their  praises  of  this  side  show,  by  which,  they  say,  the 
horticultural  exhibition  has  gained  a  most  interesting  feature. 

Surely  Lebanon  is  becoming  a  fruitful  field.  This  part 
of  the  prediction  is  surel?  being  fulfilled  today;  and  yet 
Elder  Bays  without  a  word  of  proof  would  have  us  believe 
that  every  line  of  the  prediction  was  fulfilled  588  years 
before  Christ.  That  he  is  mistaken  will  also  appear  from 
the  following  words  of  Christ  to  the  Jews  of  his  time  in 
which  he  quotes  the  language  found  in  Isaiah  twenty-ninth 
chapter: 

Ye  hypocrites,  well  did  Esaias  prophesy  of  you,  saying,  This 
people  draweih  nigh  unto  me  with  their  mouih.  and  honoreth 
me  with  their  lips;  but  their  heart  is  far  from  me.  But  in 
vain  they  do  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men.— Matt.  15:  7-9. 

If  the  Master  was  right  in  applying  this  prophecy  to  the 
people  of  his  time,  then  it  was  not  fulfilled  588  years 
before,  and  Bays  is  again  wrong.  That  a  part  of  the 
prediction  may  apply  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  we  will  not  deny.  It  seems  to  have  a 
general  application  to  the  Jews  and  their  history  for  a 
long  period  of  time,  reaching  down  to  this  latter  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews  to  their  home  and  country.  Their 
spiritual  vision  is  represented  as  being  dark,  and  the 
multitude  of  all  the  nations  that  fight  against  Zion  are 
to  share  in  the  darkness,  likened  unto  the  words  of  a  book 
that  is  sealed,  of  which  it  is  said  in  positive  language,  "is 
delivered  to  him  that  is  not  learned." 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  113 

In  connection  with  the  return  of  Israel  to  her  promised 
inheritance,  a  great  spiritual  revival  was  to  take  place, 
graphically  described  by  Isaiah  as  follows: 

Stay  yourselves,  and  wonder;  cry  ye  out,  and  cry:  they  are 
drunken,  but  not  with  wine;  they  stagger,  but  not  with  strong 
drink.  For  the  Lord  hath  poured  out  upon  you  the  spirit  ot 
deep  sleep,  and  hath  closed  your  eyes:  the  prophets  and  3rour 
rulers,  the  seers  hath  he  covered.  And  the  vision  of  all  is 
become  unto  you  as  the  words  of  a  book  that  is  sealed,  w,hich 
men  deliver  to  one  that  is  learned,  saying,  Read  this,  I  pray 
thee:  and  he  saith,  I  cannot;  for  it  is  sealed:  and  the  book  is 
delivered  to  him  that  is  not  learned,  saying,  Read  this,  I  pray 
thee:  and  he  saith,  1  am  not  learned.  Wherefore  the  Lord 
said,  Forasmuch  as  this  people  draw  near  me  with  their  mouth, 
and  with  their  lips  do  honor  me,  but  have  removed  their  heart 
far  from  me,  and  their  fear  toward  me  is  taught  by  the  precept 
of  men:  therefore,  behold,  I  will  proceed  to  do  a  marvelous 
work  among  this  people,  even  a  marvelous  work  and  a  wonder: 
for  the  wisdom  of  their  wise  men  shall  perish,  and  the  under- 
standing of  their  prudent  men  shall  be  hid.  Woe  unto  them 
that  seek  deep  to  hide  their  counsel  from  the  Lord,  and  their 
works  are  in  the  dark,  and  they  say,  Who  seeth  us?  and  who 
knoweth  us?  Surely  your  turning  of  things  upside  down  shall 
be  esteemed  as  the  potter's  clay:  for  shall  the  work  say  of  him 
that  made  it.  He  made  me  not?  or  shall  the  thing  framed  say 
of  him  that  framed  it,  He  iiad  no  understanding?  Is  it  not  yet 
a  very  little  while,  and  Lebanon  shall  be  turned  into  a  fruitful 
field,  and  the  fruitful  field  shall  be  esteemed  as  a  forest?  And 
in  that  day  shall  the  deaf  hear  the  words  of  the  book,  and  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  shall  see  out  of  obscurity,  and  out  of  dark- 
ness. The  meek  also  shall  increase  their  joy  in  the  Lord,  and 
the  poor  among  men  shall  rejoice  in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 
For  the  terrible  one  is  brought  to  nought,  and  the  scorner  is 
consumed,  and  all  that  watch  for  iniquity  are  cut  off:  that 
make  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word,  and  lay  a  snare  for  him 
that  reproveth  in  the  gate,  and  turn  aside  the  just  for  a  thing 
of  nought.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord,  who  redeemed 
Abraham,  concerning  the  house  of  Jacob,  Jacob  shall  not  now 
be  ashamed,  neither  shall  his  face  now  wax  pale.  Hut  when  he 
seeth  his  children,  the  work  of  mine  hands,  in  the  midst  of 
him.  they  shall  sanctify  my  name,  and  sanctify  the  Holy  One 
of  Jacob,  and  shall  fear  the  God  of  Israel.  They  also  that 
erred  in  spirit  shall  come  to  understanding,  and  they  that 
murmured  shall  learn  doctrine. — Isaiah  29:9-24. 

In  connection  with  this  marvelous  work  the  book  was  to 
appear,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  above.     The 


114  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Book  of  Mormon  was  given  to  the  world  in  connection 
with  the  transpiring  of  these  events,  and  hence  the  elders 
have  concluded  that  this  is  the  book  referred  to. 

His  twenty-third  chapter  has  nothing  in  it  not  already 
answered.  It  consists  in  showing  some  points  of  harmony 
between  the  predictions  in  Isaiah  twenty-ninth  chapter 
and  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Jews,  and  then  the 
conclusion  that  the  whole  chapter  was  fulfilled.  The 
illogical  and  unfair  method  of  substituting  the  part  for 
the  whole  will  be  readily  seen  by  the  reader. 


CHAPTER  6. 

Book  of  Mormon -Harris'  Visit  to  New  York— Anthon  Wrong 
— Bays  Writes  to  Linguists— Angell's  Letter -Davis'  Letter  — 
Moldenke's  Letter—  Ambon's  Letter  — Testimony  Compared 
—  Archaeology  —  Moldenke's  Embarrassment  —  Records  — 
Materials  Written  on  —  Anthon's  Theory  —  Testimony  of 
Witnesses. 

THE  twenty-fourth,  twenty-fifth,  twenty-sixth,  twenty- 
seventh,  and  twenty-eighth  chapters  of  Elder  Bays'  book 
we  prefer  to  examine  collectively,  as  they  practically 
relate  to  the  same  subject,  partaking  of  the  nature  of 
negative  argument,  and  evidence  in  rebuttal  against  the 
claims  made  for  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Elder  Bays  first 
tries  to  throw  discredit  upon  Joseph  Smith's  account  of 
Martin  Harris'  visit  to  New  York,  which  is  as  follows: 

The  persecution  however  became  so  intolerable  that  I  was 
under  the  necessity  of  leaving  Manchester,  and  going:  with  my 
wife  to  Susquehannah  county  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania: 
while  preparing  to  start  (being  very  poor  and  the  persecution 
so  heavy  upon  us  that  there  was  no  probability  that  we  would 
ever  be  otherwise),  in  the  midst  of  our  afflictions  we  found  a 
friend  in  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Martin  Harris,  who  came 
to  us  and  gave  me  fifty  dollars  to  assist  us  in  our  afflictions. 
Mr.  Harris  was  a  resident  of  Palmyra  township  Wayne  county, 
in  the  state  of  New  York,  and  a  farmer  of  respectability;  by 
this  timely  aid  was  I  enabled  to  reach  the  place  of  my  destina- 
tion in  Pennsylvania,  and  immediately  after  my  arrival  there  I 
commenced  copying  the  characters  of  the  plates.  I  copied  a 
considerable  number  of  them,  and  by  means  of  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  I  translated  some  of  them,  which  I  did  between  the 
time  I  arrived  at  the  house  of  my  wife's  father  in  the  month  of 
December,  and  the  February  following.  Sometime  in  this 
month  of  February  the  aforementioned,  Mr.  Martin  Harris 
came  to  our  place," got  the  characters  which  I  had  drawn  otf 
the  plates  and  started  with  them  to  the  city  of  New  York. 
For  what  took  place  relative  to  him  and  the  characters,  I  refer 
to  his  own  account  of  the  circumstances  as  he  related  them  to 
me  after  his  return  which  was  as  follows:  "I  went  to  the  city 

115 


116  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

of  New  York  and  presented  the  characters  which  had  been 
translated,  with  the  translation  thereof  to  Professor  Anthon,  a 
gentleman  celebrated  for  his  litera^  attainments;  -  Professor 
Anthon  stated  that  the  translation  was  correct,  more  so  than 
any  he  had  before  seen  translated  from  the  Egyptian.  1  then 
showed  him  those  which  were  not  yet  translated,  and  he  said 
that  they  were  Egyptian,  Chaldaic,  Assyriac,  and  Arabic,  and 
he  said  that  they  were  the  true  characters.  He  gave  me  a  cer- 
tificate certifying  to  the  people  of  Palmyra  that  they  were  true 
characters,  and  that  the  translation  of  such  of  them  as  had 
been  translated  was  also  correct.  I  took  the  certificate  and  put 
it  into  my  pocket,  and  was  just  leaving  the  house,  when  Mr. 
Anthon  called  me  back,  and  asked  me  how  the  young  man 
found  out  that  there  were  gold  plates  in  the  place  where  he 
found  them.  I  answered  that  an  angel  of  God  had  revealed  it 
unto  him. 

"He  then  said  to  me,  let  me  see  that  certificate,  I  accordingly 
took  it  out  of  my  pocket  and  gave  it  to  him,  when  he  took  it 
and  tore  it  to  pieces,  saying  that  there  was  no  such  thing  now  as 
ministering  of  angels,  and  that  if  I  would  bring  the  plates  to 
him,  he  would  translate  them.  I  informed  him  that  part  of 
the  plates  were  sealed,  and  that  I  was  forbidden  to  bring  them, 
he  replied  *I  cannot  read  a  sealed  book.'  I  left  him  and  went 
to  Dr.  Mitchill  who  sanctioned  what  Professor  Anthon  had  said 
respecting  both  the  characters  and  the  translation."  —  Times 
and  Seasons,  vol.  3,  pp.  772,  773. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  above  that  Martin  Harris  took  "a 
considerable  number"  of  the  characters  with  him,  and 
"some  of  them"  were  translated.  He  first  presented  to 
Professor  Anthon  those  which  were  translated,  and  the 
Professor  declared  them  to  be  Egyptian  and  the  transla- 
tion more  correct  than  any  he  had  seen.  He  next  pre- 
sented those  not  translated,  and  these  were  pronounced 
by  the  Professor  to  be  "Egyptian,  Chaldaic,  Assyriac, 
and  Arabic,"  and  to  be  true  characters. 

It  was  after  this  that  the  Professor  proposed  to  trans- 
late the  plates  if  they  were  brought  to  him,  and  was  told 
that  a  part  of  the  plates  was  sealed,  and  Mr.  Harris  was 
forbidden  to  bring  them;  and  in  this  connection  the 
Professor  said,  "I  cannot  read  a  sealed  book." 

We  are  thus  particular  in  presenting  this  matter  clearly 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  117 

because  of  the  bungling,  confused,  and  misleading  manner 
in  which  Elder  Bays  presents  the  narrative. 

In  this  connection  Elder  Bays  grossly  misrepresents  the 
defenders  of  the  claims  of  the  Book  of  Mormon;  and  to  do 
so  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Elder  W.  H.  Kelley  words  he 
did  not  use,  as  the  following  quotations  will  show: 

Every  writer  who  has  made  any  attempt  to  defend  the  claims 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  on  this  ground  has  urged  as  an  argu- 
ment full  of  potency,  that  the  learned  professor  could  not 
decipher  the  characters  submitted  to  him.  Upon  this  point 
Elder  Wm.  H.  Kelley  says: 

"Both  he  [Prof.  Anthon]  and  Dr.  Mitchell  were  waited  upon 
by  Mr.  Harris  with  a  cop}7  of  the  characters,  and  they  examined 
them,  just  as  affirmed  by  Mr.  Harris,  and  as  predicted  in  the 
twenty-ninth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  eleventh  verse,  would  be 
done,  which  is  the  main  point  in  the  investigation,  and  that 
neither  of  them  was  able  to  decipher  them."  (Presidency  and 
Priesthood,  p.  205.) 

Here  we  have  the  affirmation  of  Mr.  Kelley,  (and  he  is  con- 
sidered good  authority,)  that  the  "characters"  were  presented 
to  the  Professor,  and  that  neither  he  nor  Dr.  Mitchell  was  able 
to  decipher  them,  and  that  their  failure  to  do  so  is  "the  main 
point  in  the  investigation."  In  this  declaration  Mr.  Kelley  but 
repeats  the  position,  and  reflects  the  sentiment  of  all  the  lead- 
ing minds  of  the  denomination  from  its  rise  to  the  present  day. 
With  this  view  of  the  case  firmly  fixed  in  the  mind,  let  us 
recall  the  witness,  Martin  Harris,  for  re-direct  examination.— 
Page  224. 

Compare  this  with  what  Elder  Kelley  really  did  say: 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  Professor  Anthon  made 
his  statement  a  number  of  years  after  he  was  visited  by  Mr. 
Harris.  He  endeavors  to  treat  lightly  and  cast  discredit  upon 
the  claims  made  concerning  the  revealment  and  translation  of 
the  book  by  Mr.  Smith  (having  taken  sides  with  the  popular 
current,  not  believing  in  the  visitation  of  angels),  but  he  con- 
fesses, nevertheless,  that  both  he  and  Dr.  Mitchell  were  waited 
upon  by  Mr.  Harris  with  a  copy  of  the  characters,  and  that 
they  examined  them,  just  as  is  affirmed  by  Mr.  Harris,  and  as 
is  predicted  in  the  twenty-ninth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  the 
eleventh  verse,  would  be  done,  which  is  the  main  point  in  this 
investigation,  and  that  neither  of  them  were  able  to  decipher 
them.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  in  the  prediction  of  Isaiah  to 
indicate  that  the  learned  to  whom  the  "words  of  the  book" 
would  be  submitted  would  believe  anything  in  the  transaction, 
but  rather  the  reverse. — Presidency  and  Priesthood,  p.  205. 


118  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   HAYS. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  above  that  what  Elder  Kelley  said 
Mr.  Anthon  had  confessed,  Elder  Bays  presents  as  an 
affirmation  of  Elder  Kelley.  It  will  also  be  readily  seen  by 
examination  of  the  connection  in  which  the  words  are  use'd 
that  Elder  Kelley  did  not  affirm  that  the  failure  of  these 
learned  men  to  decipher  the  characters  was  the  main  point 
in  the  investigation,  but  that  the  presentation  and  exami- 
nation was  the  main  point  in  the  investigation.  Words 
are  too  weak  to  express  the  contempt  we  feel  for  such  a 
course  as  the  above  discloses  upon  the  part  of  Elder  Bays. 

On  pages  226  and  227  Elder  Bays  continues  as  follows: 

Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  this  document,  so  much  relied 
upon  to  support  this  claim  for  the  Book  of  Mormon,  is  actually 
self-contradictory?  And  yet  such  is  the  case. 

That  part  of  the  statement  just  quoted,  says,  in  substance, 
that  Prof.  Anthon  could,  and  in  fact  did,  "read"  the  words  or 
characters  submitted  to  him  by  Martin  Harris,  while  the  latter 
part  of  tne  statement  represents  Mr.  Anthon  as  saying,  "I  can- 
not n>ad  a  sealed  book." 

If  Prof.  Anthon  really  examined  the  characters  and  declared 
them  to  have  been  "correctly  translated,"  then  it  is  clear  to  the 
most  casual  observer  that  he  must  have  been  able  to  decipher 
the  characters  in  which  the  "sealed  book"  was  said  to  have 
been  written. 

If  by  his  great  learning  this  distinguished  professor  of  lan- 
guages could  translate  the  characters  in  which  it  is  claimed  the 
Book  of  Mormon  was  written,  then  it  is  absurd  in  the  extreme 
to  urge  that  Joseph  Smith,  or  any  other  man,  should  be  divinely 
inspired  in  order  to  their  translation. 

If  Mr.  Anthon  did  not  decipher  the  characters  presented  to 
him.  then  his  alleged  statement  or  certificate,  that  said  charac- 
ters had  been  correctly  translated,  is  absolutely  worthless,  and 
amounts  to  nothing  by  way  of  proving  what  is  claimed  for  th»: 
Book  of  Mormon. 

If  he  did  decipher  them  -  which  he  must  have  done  in  order 
to  render  the  alleged  certificate  of  any  value— then  it  does  not 
come  within  the  range  of  Isaiah's  prophecy,  for  he  declares  that, 
when  the  "words"  were  presented,  the  "learned  man"  should 
say,  "I  cannot  read  them." 

The  sophistry  of  this  is  so  apparent  that  but  little  com- 
ment is  needed.  Reading  the  characters  and  reading  the 
sealed  book  were  two  separate  and  distinct  things,  and 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  119 

the  words  were  used  in  different  connections,  and  under 
different  circumstances.  Mr.  Bays  in  order  to  make  his 
case  misquotes  Isaiah.  The  passage  does  not  read:  "I 
cannot  read  them,"  but  "I  cannot;  for  it  is  sealed." 

Concerning  the  testimony  of  Professor  Anthon  and  Mr. 
Harris,  Elder  Bays  truthfully  observes:  "It  will  doubt- 
less be  observed  that  these  statements  differ  materially  as 
to  what  occurred  on  that  occasion."  Then  he  asks, 
"Which  of  these  statements  are  we  to  believe?"  We 
certainly  cannot  believe  Professor  Anthon's.  He  says: 

This  paper  was  in  fact  a  singular  scrawl.  It  consisted  of  all 
kinds  of  crooked  characters  disposed  in  columns,  and  had 
evident!}'  been  prepared  by  some  person  who  had  before  him 
at  the  time  a  book  containing  various  alphabets.  Greek  and 
Hebrew  letters,  crosses  and  flourishes,  Roman  letters  inverted 
or  placed  sideways,  were  arranged  in  perpendicular  columns, 
and  the  whole  ended  in  a  rude  delineation  of  a  circle  divided 
into  various  compartments,  decked  with  various  strange  marks, 
and  evidently  copied  after  the  Mexican  Calendar  given  by 
Humboldt.  —  History  of  Mormonism  by  E.  D.  Howe,  pp. 
271,  272. 

An  examination  of  the  accompanying  photographic  cut 
of  the  original  paper,  will  show  Professor  Anthon  to  be 
wrong.  These  characters  are  not  arranged  in  perpen- 
dicular columns,  nor  do  they  end  "in  a  rude  delineation  of 
a  circle  divided  into  various  compartments,  decked  with 
various  strange  marks." 

Mr.  Bays  cannot  deny  the  genuineness  of  this  cut,  as  he 
has  himself  presented  it  to  several  scholars  for  examina- 
tion, and,  as  will  be  seen,  bases  his  rebuttal  largely  on 
their  opinions  regarding  it.  Professor  Anthon's  state- 
ment is  therefore  proven  untrue. 

Elder  Bays  here  questions  whether  Martin  Harris  ever 
made  this  statement,  and  expresses  the  suspicion  that 
Joseph  Smith  manufactured  the  testimony.  This  has 
already  been  refuted.  See  pages  28,  30  of  this  book. 

On  pages  232  and  233  Eider  Bays  says: 


120  REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

I  wish  again  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  statement 
attributed  to  Martin  Harris  concerning  his  interview  with 
Prof.  Anthem  never  saw  the  light  of  day,  so  far  as  the  public 
is  concerned,  till  May  2,  1842.  fourteen  years  after  the  event  is 
said  to  have  taken  place:  and  it  was  then  made  public,  not  by 
Martin  Harris,  but  by  Joseph  Smith,  the  very  man,  above  all 
others  on  earth,  the  most  directly  interested. 

In  answer  to  this  we  quote  from  a  letter  written  by 
W.  W.  Phelps  (before  he  was  a  member  of  the  church)  to 
E.  D.  Howe,  of  Painesville,  Ohio,  from  Canandaigua,  New 
York,  January  15,  1831,  and  published  in  1840,  in  "History 
of  Mormonism,"  by  E.  D.  Howe,  page  273: 

When  the  plates  were  said  to  have  been  found,  a  copy  of  one 
or  two  lines  of  the  characters,  were  taken  by  Mr.  Harris  to 
Utica,  Albany  and  New  York;  at  New  York,  they  were  shown 
to  Dr  Mitchell,  and  he  referred  to  Professor  Anthon  who 
translated  and  declared  them  to  be  the  ancient  shorthand 
Egyptian.  So  much  is  true.  The  family  of  Smiths  is  poor, 
and  generally  ignorant  in  common  learning. 

This  shows  that  the  purported  interview  was  made 
public  as  early  as  January,  1831.  Mr.  Anthon  in  his 
letter  of  February  17,  1834,  and  published  in  the  same 
work,  also  refers  to  the  claim  made  by  Harris  concerning 
the  visit  of  Harris  in  New  York. 

After  a  protracted  effort  to  show  that  the  witnesses  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon  might  have  testified  falsely,  which  we 
will  not  occupy  space  to  follow,  Elder  Bays  proceeds  to  the 
direct  evidence.  He  represents  himself  as  follows: 

Unwilling  to  trust  to  the  accuracy  of  a  transcript  made  in  the 
ordinary  way,  I  cut  the  plate  out  of  a  copy  of  Mr.  Kelley's 
book,  and  submitted  it  to  a  few  of  the  best  Eirytologists  of  the 
present  time,  with  a  request  for  each  to  pass  his  professional 
opinion  upon  the  unique  document.  Each  of  the  gentlemen 
addressed  returned  a  prompt  answer,  neither  of  them  knowing 
what  the  other  had  said;  or,  to  be  more  accurate,  neither  knew 
that  any  bod}7  else  was  to  answer  the  questions,  and  hence  there 
could  be  no  possibility  that  the  statement  of  one  could  be  influ- 
enced by  that  of  another. 

In  this  manner  each  depended  entirely  upon  his  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  question  to  be  considered,  and  was,  therefore, 
entirely  free  from  any  bias  that  might  arise  from  having 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  121 

previously  read  the  opinions  of  another,  thus  securing  the 
independent  opinion  of  some  of  the  finest  scholars  in  the 
Oriental  languages  that  our  country  affords. 

The  accompanying  plate,  an  exact  reproduction  of  Mr. 
Kelley's  photographic  copy,  will  give  the  reader  an  opportu- 
nity to  make  a  more  extended  examination  should  he  desire 
to  do  so. 

To  each  of  the  gentlemen  whose  testimony  is  submitted 
herewith,  was  addressed  a  letter  of  explanation  and  inquiry, 
substantially  as  follows: 

"DEAR  SIR:  I  herewith  inclose  what  purports  to  be  a  fac- 
simile of  the  characters  found  upon  the  gold  plates  from  which 
it  is  claimed  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  translated.  The 
advocates  of  Mormonism  maintain  that  these  characters  are 
'Egyptian,  Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic.' 

"So  far  as  I  am  informed,  these  characters  have  never  been 
submitted  to  scholars  of  eminence  for  examination;  and  as  the 
languages  named  fall  within  your  province,  including  Egyp- 
tology and  Archeology,  your  professional  opinion  as  to  their 
genuineness  will  be  of  great  value  to  the  general  reader,  in 
determining  the  exact  truth  with  respect  to  this  remarkable 
claim.  I  would  also  like  your  opinion  upon  the  following  ques- 
tions, namely: 

"1.  Did  Hebrew  scholars  at  any  time,  either  before  or  since 
Christ,  keep  their  records  on  tablets,  or  plates  of  brass? 

"2.  If  so,  did  they  ever  write  in  the  Egyptian  language? 

*'3.  Is  there  any  evidence  to  show  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
ever  written  upon  such  plates  of  brass? 

"4.  Is  there  any  proof  that  the  law  of  Moses,  or  even  the 
Decaloirue,  was  ever  written  in  the  Egyptian  language?" — 
Pages  2GO-203. 

In  the  first  place  Mr.  Bays  misrepresents  "the  advocates 
of  Mormonism"  and  misleads  the  learned  gentlemen  to 
whom  he  writes  when  he  says:  "The  advocates  of  Mor- 
monism maintain  that  these  characters  are  'Egyptian, 
Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic.'  "  We  have  before  shown 
that  no  such  claim  had  been  made  by  us.  In  making  this 
statf  ment  Elder  Bays  also  contradicts  his  own  statements 
as  follows: 

There  can  be  no  question,  then,  that  the  language  of  the 
plates  was  Egyptian.  Not  the  slightest  intimation  that  any 
other  lanffiiaire  was  ever  employed  in  keeping  these  records, 
and  hence  no  other  letters,  signs  or  characters  could  possibly 
have  been  used.  — Page  257. 


122  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Again: 

All  Mormon  authority  unites  in  declaring  that  the  plates  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  were  written  in  Egyptian. — Page  269. 

For  the  sake  of  the  comparison  we  will  here  quote  the 
several  answers  to  the  a'oove  communication  as  received 
by  Elder  Bays  and  published  in  his  book,  and  also  the 
communication  of  Professor  Anthon  as  published  by  Howe 
in  1810: 

"REV.  I).  H.  BAYS,  Dear  Sir:  I  have  submitted  your  letter 
and  inclosure  to  our  Professor  of  Oriental  languages,  who  is 
more  familiar  with  the  subjects  raised  by  your  questions  than 
I  am.  He  is  a  man  of  large  learning  in  Semitic  languages  and 
archeology.  The  substance  of  what  he  has  to  say  is: 

"'1.  The  document  which  you  enclose  raises  a  moral  rather 
than  a  Unfi'.iifttic  problem.  A  i'e\v  letters  or  signs  are  noticeable 
which  correspond  more  or  less  closely  to  the  Aramaic,  some- 
times called  Chaldee  language;  for  example,  s,  h,  g,  t,  1,  b,  n. 
There  are  no  Assyrian  characters  in  it,  and  the  impression 
made  is  that  the  document  in  fraudulent. 

"  "2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  kept  their 
records  upon  plates  or  tablets  of  brass;  but  the  Assyrians,  in 
the  eighth  century  before  Christ,  did. 

"  *3.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  to  show  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  ever  written  on  such  plates  of  brass.' 

''Yours  Truly, 

".TAMES  B.  ANGELL.* 

Ann  Arbor,  Mick.     (Italics  are  mine). — Pages  263,  204. 

"REV.  D.  H.  BAYS,  Dear  Sir:  I  am  familiar  with  Egyptian, 
Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic,  and  have  considerable  acquaint- 
ance  with  all  of  the  Oriental  languages,  and  1  can  positively 
assert  that  there  is  not  a  letter  to  be  found  in  the  fac-simile 
submitted  that  can  be  found  in  the  alphabet  of  any  Oriental 
language,  particularly  of  those  you  refer  to — namely,  Egyptian, 
Chaldaic,  Assyrian  and  Arabic. 

"A  careful  study  of  the  fac-simile  shows  that  they  are 
characters  put  down  at  random  by  an  ignorant  person  — with 
no  resemblance  to  anything,  not  even  shorthand. 

"No  record  has  ever  shown  that  the  Hebrews,  or  any  other 
Eastern  nation,  kept  their  records  upon  plates  or  tablets  of 
brass,  but  thousands  upon  thousands  of  tablets  of  baked  clay 
have  been  brought  to  light,  antedating  two  or  three  thousands 
years,  before  the  time  of  Moses,  while  libraries  of  these  baked 
clay  tablets  have  been  found,  like  those  at  Tell  el  Amara.  At 
the  time  the  Old  Testament  was  written  paper  made  from 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  123 

pap37rus  was  in  use,  and  as  documents  have  been  found  in 
Egypt  of  the  times  of  Moses,  written  on  papyri,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  we  may  find  yet  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

"The  treasures  of  Egypt  and  Palestine  are  only  just  being 
brought  to  light.     Remarkable  discoveries  are  yet  to  be  made. 
"Respectfully,  CHAS.  H.  S.  DAVIS." 

—Pages  264,  265. 

"JERUSALEM  [Palestine],  DEC.  27,  1896. 

"Rsv.  D.  H.  BAYS,  Dear  Sir  and  Brother:  Your  letter  dated 
Nov.  23rd  I  have  just  received.  I  will  try  to  answer  your  ques- 
tions as  far  as  I  am  able.  I  believe  the  plates  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  to  be  a  fraud' 

"In  the  first  place  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  any  old  inscrip- 
tion. 'Egyptian,  Arabic,  Chaldaic  and  Assyrian,'  characters 
mixed  together.  The  simple  idea  of  finding  Egyptian  and 
Arabic  side  by  side  is  ridiculous  and  impossible. 

"In  the  second  place,  though  some  signs  remind  one  of  those 
on  the  Mesa  Inscription,  yet  none  bear  a  resemblance  to 
Egyptian  or  Assyrian. 

"As  far  as  I  know  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  kept 
records  on  plates  of  brass,  or  ever  wrote  on  such  plates.  About 
the  prophecy  contained  in  Isa.  29:  1-14,  I  can  venture  nc 
opinion,  as  I  am  not  a  Biblical  scholar,  and  only  concerr 
myself  about  Eg\rptology.  Very  truly  yours, 

"CHARLES  E.   MOLDENKE." 

—Page  266. 

The  letter  of  Professor  Anthon  is  as  follows: 

New  York,  Feb.  17,  1834. 

Dear  Sir— I  received  this  morning  your  favor  of  the  9th 
instant,  and  lose  no  time  in  making  a  reply.  The  whole  story 
about  my  having  pronounced  the  Mormonite  inscription  to  be 
"reformed  Egyptian  hieroglyphics"  is  perfectly  false.  Some 
years  ago,  a  plain,  and  apparently  simple-hearted  farmer, 
called  upon  me  with  a  note  from  Dr.  Mitchell  of  our  city,  now 
deceased,  requesting  me  to  decypher,  if  possible,  a  paper,  which 
the  farmer  would  hand  me,  and  which  Dr.  M.  confessed  he  had 
been  .unable  to  understand.  Upon  examining  the  paper  in 
question,  I  soon  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  all  a  trick, 
perhaps  a  hoax.  When  I  asked  the  person,  who  brought  it, 
how  he  obtained  the  writing,  he  gave  me,  as  far  as  I  can  now 
recollect,  the  following  account:  A  "gold  book,"  consisting  of 
a  number  of  plates  of  gold,  fastened  together  in  the  shape  of  a 
book  by  wires  of  the  same  metal,  had  been  dug  up  in  the  north- 
ern part  of  the  state  of  New  York,  and  along  with  the  book  an 
enormous  pair  of  "gold  spectacles"!  These  spectacles  were  so 
large,  that,  if  a  person  attempted  to  look  through  them,  his  two 


124  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

eyes  would  have  to  be  turned  towards  one  of  the  glasses  merely, 
the  spectacles  in  question  being  altogether  too  large  for  the 
breadth  of  the  human  face.  Whoever  examined  the  plates 
through  the  spectacles,  was  enabled  not  only  to  read  them,  but 
fully  to  understand  their  meaning.  All  this  knowledge,  how- 
ever, was  confined  at  that  time  to  a  young  man,  who  had  the 
trunk  containing  the  book  and  spectacles  in  his  sole  possession. 
This  young  man  was  placed  behind  a  curtain,  in  the  garret  of  a 
farm  house,  and,  being  thus  concealed  from  view,  put  on  the 
spectacles  occasionally,  or  rather,  looked  through  one  of  the 
glasses,  decyphered  the  characters  in  the  book,  and,  having 
committed  some  of  them  to  paper,  handed  copies  from  behind 
the  curtain,  to  those  who  stood  on  the  outside.  Not  a  word, 
however,  was  said  about  the  plates  having  been  decyphered  "by 
the  gift  of  God."  Every  thing,  in  this  way,  was  effected  by  the 
large  pair  of  spectacles.  The  farmer  added,  that  he  had  been 
requested  to  contribute  a  sum  of  money  towards  the  publica- 
tion of  the  "golden  book,"  the  contents  of  which  would,  as  he 
had  been  assured,  produce  an  entire  change  in  the  world  and 
save  it  from  ruin.  So  urgent  had  been  these  solicitations,  that 
he  intended  selling  his  farm  and  handing  over  the  amount 
received  to  those  who  wished  to  publish  the  plates.  As  a  last 
precautionary  step,  however,  he  had  resolved  to  come  to  New 
York,  and  obtain  the  opinion  of  the  learned  about  the  meaning 
of  the  paper  which  he  brought  with  him,  and  which  had  been 
given  him  as  a  part  of  the  contents  of  the  book,  although  no 
translation  had  been  furnished  at  the  time  by  the  young  man 
with  the  spectacles.  On  hearing  this  odd  story,  I  changed  my 
opinion  about  the  paper,  and,  instead  of  viewing  it  any  longer 
as  a  hoax  upon  the  learned,  I  began  to  regard  it  as  part  of  a 
scheme  to  cheat  the  farmer  of  his  money,  and  I  communicated 
my  suspicions  to  him,  warning  him  to  beware  of  rogues.  He 
requested  an  opinion  from  me  in  writing,  which  of  course  I 
declined  giving,  and  he  then  took  his  leave  carrying  the  paper 
with  him.  This  paper  was  in  fact  a  singular  scrawl.  It  con- 
sisted of  all  kinds  of  crooked  characters  disposed  in  columns, 
and  had  evidently  been  prepared  by  some  person  who  had 
before  him  at  the  time  a  book  containing  various  alphabets. 
Greek  and  Hebrew  letters,  crosses  and  flourishes,  Roman  letters 
inverted  or  placed  sideways,  were  arranged  in  perpendicular 
columns,  and  the  whole  ended  in  a  rude  delineation  of  a  circle 
divided  into  various  compartments,  decked  with  various 
strange  marks,  and  evidently  copied  after  the  Mexican  Calen- 
dar given  by  H  urn  bold  t,  but  copied  in  such  a  way  as  not  to 
betray  the  source  whence  it  was  derived.  I  am  thus  particular 
as  to  the  contents  of  the  paper,  inasmuch  as  I  have  frequently 
conversed  with  my  friends  on  the  subject,  since  the  Mormonite 
excitement  began,  and  well  remember  that  the  paper  contained 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  125 

any  thing-  else  but  "Egyptian  Hieroglyphics.'19  Some  time  after, 
the  same  farmer  paid  me  a  second  visit.  He  brought  with  him 
the  golden  book  in  print,  and  offered  it  to  me  for  sale.  I 
declined  purchasing.  He  then  asked  permission  to  leave  the 
book  with  me  for  examination.  I  declined  receiving  it, 
although  his  manner  was  strangely  urgent.  I  adverted  once 
more  to  the  roguery  which  had  been  in  my  opinion  practiced 
upon  him,  and  asked  him  what  had  become  of  the  gold  plates. 
He  informed  me  that  they  were  in  a  trunk  with  the  large  pair 
of  spectacles.  .1  advised  him  to  go  to  a  magistrate  and  have 
the  trunk  examined.  He  said  the  "curse  of  God"  would  come 
upon  him  should  he  do  this.  On  my  pressing  him,  however,  to 
pursue  the  course  which  1  had  recommended,  he  told  me  that 
he  would  open  the  trunk,  if  I  would  take  the  "curse  of  God" 
upon  myself.  I  replied  that  I  would  do  so  with  the  greatest 
willingness,  and  would  incur  every  risk  of  that  nature,  pro- 
vided I  could  only  extricate  him  from  the  grasp  of  rogues.  He 
then  left  me. 

I  have  thus  given  you  a  full  statement  of  all  that  I  know 
respecting  the  origin  of  Mormonism,  and  must  beg  you,  as  a 
personal  favor,  to  publish  this  letter  immediately,  should  you 
find  my  name  mentioned  again  by  these  wretched  fanatics. 

Yours  respectfully,  CHAS.  ANTHON. 

E.  D.  Howe,  Esq.  Painesmlle,  Ohio. 

— History  of  Mormonism,  by  E.  D.  Howe,  pp.  270-272. 

It  may  be  thought  presumptuous  to  criticise  these 
learned  men,  but  of  all  productions  of  mortal  man,  the 
productions  of  scholars  ought  to  stand  criticism,  and  if 
they  will  not,  no  excuse  can.  be  made. 

Compare  the  following:  (Some  of  the  following  italics 
are  mine.) 

A  few  letters  or  signs  are  noticeable  which  correspond  more  or 
less  closely  to  the  Aramaic,  sometimes  called  Chaldee  language; 
for  example,  s,  h,  g,  t,  1,  b,  n.  — Angell. 

I  can  positively  assert  that  there  is  not  a  letter  to  be  found  in 
the  fac-si mile  submitted  that  can  be  found  in  the  alphabet  of 
any  Oriental  language,  particularly  of  those  you  refer  to  — 
namely.  Egyptian,  Ghaldatc,  Assyrian  and  Arabic.  A  careful 
study  of  the  fac-si  mile  shows  that  they  are  characters  put 
down  at  random  by  an  ignorant  person — with  no  resemblance  to 
anything,  not  even  shorthand. — Davis. 

In  the  second  place,  though  some  signs  remind  one  of  those  on 
the  Mesa  Inscription,  yet  none  bear  a  resemblance  to  Egyptian 
or  Assvrian. — Moldenke. 


126  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Greek  and  Hebrew  letters,  crosses  and  flourishes,  Roman  letters 
inverted  or  placed  sideways,  were  arranged  in  perpendicular 
columns,  etc. — Anlhon. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  kept  their  records 
upon  plates  or  tablets  of  brass;  but  the  Assyrians,  in  the  eighth 
century  before  Christ,  did.  —  Angell. 

No  record  has  ever  shown  that  the  Hebrews,  or  any  other 
Eastern  nation,  kept  their  records  upon  plates  or  tablets  of 
brass. — Davis. 

This  is  the  contradictory  mass  that  Mr.  Bays  relies  on 
as  evidence  in  rebuttal.  Mr.  Angell  finds  signs  on  the 
facsimile  more  or  less  closely  resembling  Chaldee;  Mr. 
Moldenke  finds  signs  that  remind  one  of  those  on  the 
Mesa  Inscription;  and  Mr.  Anthon  finds  Greek,  Hebrew, 
and  Roman  letters;  while  Mr,  Davis  finds  no  resemblance  to 
anything. 

Again,  Mr.  Angell  thinks  that  the  Assyrians  kept  their 
records  on  brass;  but  Mr.  Davis  says  "no  record  has  ever 
shown  that  the  Hebrews,  or  any  other  eastern  nation," 
did.  However,  Messrs.  Anthon,  Davis,  and  Moldenke  all 
agree  that  there  are  no  Egyptian  characters  on  the 
facsimile,  while  Mr.  Angell  says  nothing  on  this  point. 

We  would  not  expect  linguists  to  recognize  Egyptian 
characters  on  the  plates  readily,  as  the  Book  of  Mormon 
declares: 

And  now  behold,  we  have  written  this  record  according  to 
our  knowledge  in  the  characters,  which  are  called  among  us 
the  reformed  Egyptian,  being  handed  down  and  altered  by  us, 
according  to  our  manner  of  speech.  And  if  our  plates  had 
been  sufficiently  large,  we  should  have  written  in  the  Hebrew; 
but  the  Hebrew  hath  been  altered  by  us  also;  and  if  we  could 
have  written  in  the  Hebrew,  behold,  ye  would  have  had  none 
imperfection  in  our  record.  But  the  Lord  knoweth  the  things 
which  we  have  written,  and  also  that  none  other  people 
knoweth  our  language;  and  because  that  none  other  people 
knoweth  our  language,  therefore  he  hath  prepared  means 
for  the  interpretation  thereof. — Page  5y8,  Palmyra  edition. 

By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  failure  of  these  scholars 
to  read,  and  the  confusion  of  their  statements,  but  confirm 
the  statement  of  the  book  that,  "None  other  people  know- 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  127 

eth  our  language."  Yet  there  are  some  characters  on  the 
plates  closely  resembling  the  Egyptian,  as  anyone  can 
determine  by  comparing  Egyptian  characters  with  the 
facsimile. 

There  is  competent  evidence  that  the  prehistoric  Ameri- 
cans were  influenced  by  Egyptian  civilization.  When  we 
consider  the  account  given  in  the  Book  of  Mormon;  viz., 
that  though  this  country  was  peopled  by  Jews,  yet  they 
were  a  people  acquainted  with  the  customs  of  Egypt,  the 
following  is  quite  significant: 

No  claim  has  been  advanced,  we  believe,  which  advocates  an 
actual  Egyptian  colonization  of  the  new  world,  but  strong 
arguments  have  been  used  to  show  that  the  architecture  and 
sculpture  of  Central  America  and  Mexico  have  been  influenced 
from  Esrypt,  if  not  attributable  directly  to  Egyptian  artisans. 
These  arguments  are  based  on  the  resemblance  between  the 
gigantic  pyramids,  the  sculptured  obelisks,  and  the  numerous 
fdols  of  these  prehistoric  countries  and  those  of  Egypt.  It 
requires  no  practiced  eye  to  trace  a  resemblance  in  general 
features,  though  it  must  be  said  that  the  details  of  American 
architecture  and  sculpture,  are  peculiarly  original  in  design. 
The  principal  advocate  of  the  theory,  Delafield,  has  furnished 
many  comparisons,  but  we  think  no  argument  has  been  pre- 
sented sufficiently  supported  by  facts  to  prove  that  American 
architecture  and  sculpture  had  any  other  than  an  indigenous 
origin.— Short,  The  North  Americans  of  Antiquity,  p.  147. 

Just  what  might  be  expected  from  the  Book  of  Mormon 
theory.  Their  architecture  and  sculpture  were  not  of 
Egyptian  origin  but  bearing  Egyptian  resemblance. 

That  the  language  of  ancient  Americans  also  bore  a 
resemblance  to  the  Egyptian  is  well  established.  The 
following  is  evidence  in  point: 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  for  us  to  remark  that  the  seem  ing 
analogies  between  the  Maya  (Central  American)  sculpture  and 
that  of  Egypt  have  often  been  noted.  Juarros,  in  speaking  of 
Palenque'art,  says:  "The  hieroglyphics,  symbols  and  emblems 
which  have  been  discovered  in  the-  temples,  bear  so  strong  a 
resemblance  to  those  of  the  Egyptians,  as  to  encourage  the  sup- 
position that  a  colony  of  that  nation  may  have  founded  the 
city  of  Palenque  or  Culhuacan."  Giordan  found,  as  he 
thought,  the  most  striking  analogies  between  the  Central 


128  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

American  remains,  as  well  as  those  of  Mexico,  and  those  of  the 
Egyptians.  The  idols  and  monuments  he  considers  of  the  same 
form  in  both  countries,  while  the  hieroglyphics  of  Palenque  do 
not  differ  from  those  of  ancient  Thebes.  Senor  Melgar,  in  a 
communication  to  the  Mexican  Geographical  Society,  has 
called  attention  to  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  (~|~)  tau  a-t 
Palenque,  and  has  more  studiously  advocated  the  early  rela- 
tionship of  the  Palenqueans  to  Egypt  than  any  other  reliable 
writer.  He  cites  Dupaix's  Third  Expedition,  page  77  and  plates 
26  and  27,  where  in  the  first  figure  is  a  goddess  with  a  necklace 
supporting  a  tau  like  medallion  to  which  the  explorer  adds  the 
remark  that  such  is  "the  symbol  in  Egypt  of  reproduction  or 
abundance."  In  the  second  plate  he  finds  an  aliar  dedicated 
expressly  to  the  tau.  He  considers  that  the  cultus  of  this,  the 
symbol  of  the  active  principle  in  nature,  prevailed  in  Mexico 
in  many  places.  Senor  Melgar  also  refers  to  two  idols  found 
south  of  the  city  of  Mexico,  "in  one  of  which  two  symbols  were 
united,  namely,  the  Cosmogonic  egg,  symbolical  of  creation, 
and  two  faces,  symbols  of  the  generative  principle.  The  other 
s\Tmbolized  creation  in  the  bursting  forth  of  an  egg.  These 
symbols  are  not  found  in  the  Aztec  mythology,  but  belong:  to 
the  Indian,  Egyptian,  Greek,  Persian,  Japanese  and  other 
cosmogonies."  This,  the  Senor  considers  proof  that  these  peo- 
ples were  the  primitive  colonists  of  that  region,  and  seeks  to 
sustain  his  views  by  references  to  the  Dharma  Sastra  of  Manou 
and  the  Zend  Avesta.  The  reader  has  no  doubt  been  surprised 
at  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  T"'snaPecl  niches  in  the 
Palenque  palace,  and  has  observed  the  same  symbol  employed 
on  some  of  the  hieroglyphics  of  the  Tablet  of  the  Cross.  The 
Egyptian  tau,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Crux  ansata,  is  cer- 
tainly present  at  Palenque,  but  whether  it  was  derived  from 
any  one  of  the  Mediterranean  peoples  who  employed  it,  cannot 
be  ascertained.  Among  the  Egyptians  it  signified  "life,"  as  is 
shown  by  the  best  Egyptologists. — The  North  Americans  of 
Antiquity,  pp.  415-417. 

Resemblances  have  been  found  between  the  calendar  systems 
of  Egypt  and  America,  based  chiefly  upon  the  length  and 
division  of  the  year,  and  the  number  of  intercalary  and  com- 
plementary days. — Bancroft,  Native  Races  of  the -Pacific 
States,  vol.  5,  p.  62. 

But  at  Lexington  [Kentucky],  the  traits  are  too  notorious  to 
allow  them  to  be  other  than  pure  Egyptian,  in  full  possession 
of  the  strongest  complexion  of  their  national  character,  that  of 
embalming,  which  was  connected  with  their  religion.—  Priest's 
American  Antiquities,  p.  119. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  sources  of  comparison  between 
Mexico,  Peru,  and  Egypt,  is  to  be  found  in  an  investigation  of 
their  hieroglyphic  system.  Each  of  these  countries  had  a 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  129 

peculiar  method  of  recording  events  by  means  of  hierosrh'phic 
signs,  sculpturing  them  on  monuments  and  buildings,  and 
porirayhiir  t  hem  on  papyrus  and  maguey. — Delatield's  Ameri- 
can Antiquities,  p.  42. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  author  that  farther  investigations 
and  discoveries  in  deciphering  Mexican  hieroglyphic  paintings 
will  exhibit,  a  close  analogy  to  I  he  Egyptian  in  the  use  of  two 
scriptural  systems:  the  one  for  monumental  inscription,  the 
other  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  record  and  transmission  of 
information.  We  find  the  three  species  at  hieroglyphics  com- 
mon to  Mexico  and  Egypt.  —  Ibid.,  p.  40. 

The  ancient  Maya  hieratic  alphabet,  discovered  by  me,  is  as 
near  alike  to  the  ancient  hieratic  alphabet  of  the  Egyptians  as 
two  alphabets  can  possibly  be,  forcing  upon  us  the  conclusion 
that  the  Mayas  and  the  Egyptians  either  learned  the  art  of 
writing  from  the  same  masters,  or  that  the  Egyptians  learned 
it  from  the  Mayas. — Le  Plongeon,  Sacred  Mysteries,  p.  113. 

In  tracing,  then,  the  ancestry  of  the  Mexicans  and  Peruvians, 
by  analogy  in  their  hieroglyphic  system,  where  shall  we  take 
them  but  to  Egypt  and  to  southern  Asia? — Delafield's  American 
Antiquities,  p.  47. 

Of  a  comparison  of  the  "days  of  the  Mexican  calendar" 
with  the  "lunar  houses  of  the  Hindoos";  also  with  refer- 
ence to  "the  analogy  between  the  zodiac  of  the  Mexicans 
and  that  of  fhe  Mantchou  Tartars,"  Delafield  says: 

These  quotations  we  consider  very  positive  evidence  of  an 
early  identity  between  the  aboriginal  race  of  America  and 
the  southern  Asiatic  and  Egyptian  family.  —  American 
Antiquities,  p.  51. 

As  to  the  Mexicans,  it  would  be  superfluous  to  examine  how 
the}7  attained  this  knowledge.  Such  a  problem  would  not 
be  soon  solved;  but  the  fact  of  the  intercalation  of  thirteen 
days  every  cycle,  that  is,  the  use  of  a  year  of  three  hundred 
and  sixty-five  days  and  a  quarter,  fs  a  proof  that  it  was 
either  borrowed  from  the  Egyptians,  or  that  they  had  a  com- 
mon origin.  —  Delafield's  American  Antiquities,  p.  53. 

Much  more  might  be  adduced  upon  these  points  but 
space  prevents. 

The  question  as  to  whether  the  prehistoric  Americans 
were  of  Jewish  origin  has  been  discussed  extensively,  and 
authorities  differ  upon  it.  On  this  Mr.  Bancroft  says: 

The  theory  that  the  Americans  are  of  Jewish  descent  has 
been  discussed  more  minutely  and  at  greater  length  than  any 


130  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

other.  Its  advocates,  or  at  least  those  of  them  who  have  made 
original  -researches,  are  comparatively  few;  but  the  extent  of 
their  investigations  and  the  multitude  of  parallelisms  they 
adduce  in  support  of  their  hypothesis,  exceed  by  far  anything 
we  have  yet  encountered. — Native  Races,  vol.  5,  pp.  77,  78. 

Mr.  A.  A.  Bancroft,  father  of  the  historian,  describes  a 
slab  found  in  Ohio  as  follows: 

About  eight  miles  southeast  of  Newark  there  was  formerly  a 
large  mound  composed  of  masses  of  free-stone,  which  had  been 
brought  from  some  distance  and  thrown  into  a  heap  without 
much  placing  or  care.  In  early  days,  stone  being  scarce  in  that 
region,  the  settlers  carried  away  the  mound  piece  by  piece  to 
use  for  building  purposes,  so  that  in  a  few  years  there  was 
little  more  than  a  large  flattened  heap  of  rubbish  remaining*. 
Some  fifteen  years  ago,  the  county  surveyor  (I  have  forgotten 
his  name),  who  had  for  some  time  been  searching  ancient 
works,  turned  his  attention  to  this  particular  pile.  He 
employed  a  number  of  men  and  at  once  proceeded,  to  open 
it.  Before  long  he  was  rewarded  by  finding  in  the  center  and 
near  the  surface  a  bed  of  the  tough  clay  generally  known  as 
pipe-clay,  which  must  have  been  brought  from  a  distance  of 
some  twelve  miles.  Imbedded  in  the  clay  was  a  coffin,  dug  out 
of  a  burr-oak  log,  and  in  a  pretty  good  state  of  preservation. 
In  the  coffin  was  a  skeleton,  with  quite  a  number  of  stone 
ornaments  and  emblems,  and  some  open  brass  *in<rs,  suitable 
for  bracelets  or  anklets.  These  being  removed,  they  dug  down 
deeper,  and  soon  discovered  a  stone  dressed  to  an  oblong  shape, 
about  eighteen  inches  long  and  twelve  wide,  which  proved  to 
be  a  casket,  neatly  fitted  and  completely  watertight,  containing 
a  slab  of  stone  of  hard  and  fine  quality,  an  inch  and  a  half 
thick,  eight  inches  long,  four  inches  and  a  half  wide  at  one 
end,  and  tapering  to  three  inches  at  the  other.  Upon  the  face 
of  the  slab  was  the  figure  of  a  man,  apparently  a  priest,  with  a 
long  flowing  beard,  and  a  robe  reaching  to  his^feet.  Over  his 
head  was  a  curved  line  of  characters,  and  upon  the  edges  and 
back  of  the  stone  were  closely  and  neatly  carved  letters.  The 
slab,  which  I  saw  myself,  was  shown  to  the  episcopalian 
clergyman  of  Newark,  and  he  pronounced  the  writing  to  be 
the  ten  Commandments  in  ancient  Hebrew.  — Native  Races, 
vol.  5,  pp.  94,  95. 

Mr.  G.  R.  Lederer,  a  converted  Jew  and  editor  of  the 
Israelite  Indeed,  wrote  in  May,  1861,  as  follows: 

We  suppose  that  many,  if  not  most  of  our  readers  have  seen, 
in  religious  as  well  as  secular  papers,  the  accounts  of  some 
relics  which  were  found  a  few  months  ago  in  a  mound  near 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  131 

Newark,  Ohio.  These  relics  consist  of  stones,  in  strange 
shapes,  bearing  Hebrew  inscriptions,  which  makes  the  case 
particularly  interesting  to  me,  as  a  Hebrew.  I  have  read, 
therefore,  with  great  interest,  all  that  has  been  published  con- 
cerning them,  and  studied  the  opinions  of  different  men  of 
science  and  learning,  who  have  expressed  themselves  in  public; 
but  1  desired  to  see  the  objects  themselves,  to  put  my  finger  on 
these  relics,  which  bear  inscriptions  of  the  holy  language,  a 
language  which  once  was  written  with  the  finger  of  God  upon 
tables  of  stone;  a  language  spoken  and  written  by  the  prophets 
of  Israel,  who  predicted  the  main  features,  not  only  of  the  his- 
tory of  Israel,  but  also  of  the  world  at  lar<re.  It  "is  one  of  the 
peculiar  and  national  characteristics  of  the  Jews,  to  feel  a 
sacred  awe  for  that  language,  and  even  for  "the  square  charac- 
ters" in  which  it  is  written,  so  that  every  written  or  printed 
Hebrew  pagre  is  called  "Shemos,"  by  which  the  people  mean  to 
say,  a  paper  on  which  holy  names  are  printed  or  written.  A 
pious  Jew  would  never  use  any  Hebrew  book  or  paper  for  any 
secular  purpose  whatever,  and  carefully  picks  up  every  bit  and 
burns  it.  Being  now,  by  the  grace  of  God,  an  "Israelite 
Indeed,"  believing  in  Him  concerning  whom  Moses  and  the 
prophets  did  write,  that  sacred  language  has  increased  in  its 
charming  influence  upon  my  mind;  this  may  explain  my 
anxiety  to  see  those  relics  with  the  Hebrew  inscriptions,  with- 
out, however,  entertaining  the  least  hope  of  ever  having  that 
wish  realized.  This  time,  however,  I  was  gladly  disappointed; 
for,  in  calling  a  few  days  ago  on  my  friend,  Mr.  Theodore 
Dwight,  (the  Recording  Secretary  of  the  "American  Ethnologi- 
cal Society,"  and  my  associate  in  the  editorship  of  this 
Magazine,)  my  eyes  met  with  the  very  objects  of  my  desire. 
That  I  examined  these  antiquities  carefully,  none  of  our 
readers  will,  I  think,  entertain  any  doubt.  I  recognized  all  the 
letters  except  one,  (the  ayin,)  though  the  forms  of  many  of 
them  are  different  from  those  now  in  use.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  case  with  the  stone  found  first,  (viz.,  in  July,  I860,) 
which  has  the  form  of  an  ancient  jar,  bearing  Hebrew  inscrip- 
tions on  its  four  sides,  which  are  in  perfectly  such  characters 
as  those  generally  in  use  now.  I  cannot  form  any  opinion  con- 
cerning the  use  or  meaning  of  this,  which  was  found  first,  as 
the  inscriptions  do  not  lead  to  any  suggestions  whatever.  They 
are  as  follows:  1.  "Debar  Jehovah,"  (meaning  the  word  of 
Jehovah)  2.  "Kodesh  Kodeshim,"  (The  Holy  of  Holies.)  3. 
"Thorath  Jehovah,"  (The  Law  of  Jehovah, )  and  4.  "Melek 
Aretz,"  (King  of  the  Earth.)— Israelite  Indeed,  May,  1861,  pp. 
264,  265. 

Much  more   evidence  of  this   character  might  be  pre- 
sented,   but   we    will    close    with    an    extract    from    the 


132  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

writings  of  Mr.  George  Catlin,  giving  reasons  for  believ- 
ing that  the  American  Indians  were  descendants  from  the 
Jews: 

"I  believe,  with  many .  others,  that  the  North  American 
Indians  at\e  a  mixed  people— that  they  have  Jewish  blood  in 
their  veins,  though  I  would  not  assert,  as  some  have  undertaken 
to  prove,  'that  they  are  Jews,'  or  that  they  are  'the  ten  lost 
tribes  of  Israel.'  From  the  character  and  conformation  of  their 
heads,  I  am  compelled  to  look  upon  them  as  an  amalgam  race; 
but  st  ill  savages;  and  from  many  of  their  customs,  which  seem  to 
me  to  be  peculiarly  Jewish,  as  well  as  from  the  character  of  their 
heads,  I  am  forced  to  believe  that  some  part  of  those  ancient 
tribes,  who  have  been  dispersed  by  Christians  in  so  many  ways, 
and  in  so  many  different  eras,  have  found  their  way  to  this 
country,  where  they  have  entered  amongst  the  native  stock.  .  .  . 
1  am  induced  to  believe  thus  from  the  very  many  customs  which 
I  have  witnessed  among  them,  that  appear  to  be  decidedly 
Jewish,  and  many  of  them  peculiar!}7  so,  that  it  would  seem 
almost  impossible,  or  at  all  events,  exceedingly  improbable, 
that  two  peoples  in  a  state  of  nature  should  have  hit  upon  them, 
and  practiced  them  exactly  alike.  .  .  .  The  first  and  most 
striking  fact  amongst  the  North  American  Indians  that  refers 
us  to  the  Jews,  is  thatof  their  worshiping,  in  all  parts,  the  Great 
Spirit,  or  Jehovah,  as  the  Hebrews  were  ordered  to  do  by  divine 
precept,  instead  of  plurality  of  Gods,  as  ancient  Pagans  and 
Heat  hens  did,  and  the  idols  of  their  own  formation."  .  .  . 

First,  "The  Jews  had  their  sanctum  sanctorums,  and  so  it  may 
be  said  the  Indians  have,  in  their  council  or  medicine  houses, 
which  are  always  held  as  sacred  places."  Second,  "As  the 
Jews  had,  they  have  their  High  Priests  and  their  Prophets." 
Third,  "Amongst  the  Indians,  as  amongst  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
the  women  are  not  allowed  to  worship  with  the  men,  and  in 
all  cases  also,  they  eat  separately."  Fourth,  "The  Indians, 
everywhere,  believe  that  they  are  the  favorite  people  of  the 
Great  Spirit,  and  they  certainly  are,  like  that  ancient  people, 
persecuted,  as  every  man's  hand  seems  raised  against  them." 
Fifth,  "In  their  marriaires,  the  Indians,  as  did  the  ancient 
Jews,  uniformly  buy  their  wives  by  giving  presenis;  and  in 
many  tribes,  very  closely  resemble  them  in  other  forms  and 
ceremonies  of  their  marriages."  Sixih,  "In  their  preparations 
for  war,  and  in  peacemaking,  they  are  strikingly  similar." 
Seventh,  "In  their  treatment  of  the  sick,  burial  of  the  dead, 
and  mourning,  they  are  also  similar."  Eighth,  "In  their 
bathing  and  ablutions,  at  all  seasons  of  the  year,  as  a  part  of 
their  religious  observances,  having  separate  places  for  men 
and  women  to  perform  these  immersions,  the}'  resemble  again." 
Ninth,  "And  the  custom,  among  the  women,  of  absenting 


REPLY   TO   D,   H.   BAYS.  133 

themselves  during  the  lunar  influences,  is  exactly  consonnnt 
to  the  Mosaic  Law."  Tenth,  "After  this  season  of  separiu  ion, 
purification  in  running  water,  and  anointing,  precisely  in 
accordance  with  the  Jewish  command,  is  required  before"  she 
can  enter  the  family  lodge."  Eleventh,  "Many  of  them  have 
a  feast  closely  resembling  the  annual  feast  of  the  Jewish 
Passover,  and  amongst  others,  an  occasion  much  like  the 
Israelitish  feast  of  the  Tabernacles,  which  lasted  eight  days, 
(when  history  tells  us  they  carried  willow  boughs,  and  fast'ed 
several  days  and  nights,)  making  sacrifices  of  the  first-fruits 
and  best  of  everything,  closely  resembling  the  sin  offering 
and  peace  offering  of  the  Hebrews.  (See  vol.  ],  pp.  loi)- 
170,  of  Religious  Ceremonies  of  the  Mandans.)"  Twelfth, 
"Amongst  the  list  of  their  customs,  however,  we  meet,  a 
number  which  had  their  origin,  it  would  seem,  in  the  Jewish 
ceremonial  code,  and  which  are  so  very  peculiar  in  their 
forms,  that  it  would  seem  quite  improbable,  and  almost  impos- 
sible, that  two  different  peoples  should  ever  have  hit  upon  them 
alike,  without  some  knowledge  of  each  other,  ^hese,  I  con- 
sider, go  farther  than  anything  else  as  evidence,  and  carry 
in  my  mind  conclusive  proof  that  these  people  are  tinctured 
with  Jewish  blood."  -  Catlin's  North  American  Indians,  vol.  2, 
pp.  231-234,  as  copied  by  Elder  Mark  H.  Forscutt. 

Here  is  evidence  quite  conclusive  that  our  predecessors 
in  America  understood  something  of  both  Hebrew  and 
Egyptian  learning,  and  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
statement  of  Nephi: 

I  make  a  record  in  the  language  of  my  father,  which  con- 
sists of  the  learning  of  the  Jews  and  the  language  of  the 
Egyptians.  — Book  of  Mormon,  p.  5. 

Mr.  Davis'  assertion  that  the  characters  do  not  even 
resemble  shorthand  is  simply  ridiculous.  Every  principal 
system  of  shorthand  in  use  in  England  or  America  is 
derived  from  Isaac  Pitman's,  and  uses  the  same  general 
characters.  His  system  was  based  upon  the  complete 
circle,  with  straight,  horizontal,  perpendicular,  and  inter- 
mediate angles  struck  through.  So  that  every  part  of 
the  circle  and  every  line  is  utilized.  One  can  scarcely 
make  a  stroke  of  the  pen  without  imitating  some  character 
of  shorthand.  Anyone  who  is  acquainted  with  shorthand 
will  find  by  examination  of  the  facsimile,  not  only  charac- 


134  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

ters    resembling    phonographic   words,    but   he   will   find 
phrases  as  well. 

Mr.  Moldenke  has  placed  himself  in  an  embarrassing 
situation  if  Mr.  Bays  has  quoted  him  correctly,  by  writing 
another  letter  in  which  he  contradicts  his  position  in  this 
letter  in  one  important  particular  as  the  following  letter 
will  show: 

MOUNT  VERNON,  January  13,  1898. 
MR.  FRANK  M.  SHEEHY, 

Dear  Sir: — Your  inquiry  has  not  been  answered  by  me  sooner 
on  account  of  stress  of  work.  I  had  occasion  to  answer  a  simi- 
lar inquiry  to  yours  while  in  Jerusalem  last  year.  While  some 
of  the  characters  bear  a  very  slight  resemblance  to  Old  Hebrew 
and  Egyptian  letters,  still  the  whole  page  shows  plainly  the 
work  of  the  forger  and  ignoramus.  In  fact  sentences  lettered 
in  Arabic,  Hebrew,  Egyptian  promiscuously  would  be  sheer 
nonsense.  All  the  characters  of  this  "Book  of  Mormon"  are  not 
even  a  clever  invention  but  a  barefaced  and  idiotic  scribble. 
Returning  to  you  the  printed  sheet  I  remain 
Yours  respectfully, 

CHARLES  E.  MOLDENKE 

To  Elder  Bays  he  says:  "None  bear  a  resemblance  to 
Egyptian,"  etc.;  while  to  Elder  Sheehy  who  presented  him 
a  copy  of  the  same  he  says:  "Some  of  the  characters  bear 
a  very  slight  resemblance  to  Old  Hebrew  and  Egyptian 
letters."  If  Mr.  Moldenke's  opinion  is  of  any  value  it  will 
serve  to  corroborate  the  statement  previously  quoted  from 
the  Book  of  Mormon  that  they  wrote  in  both  Egyptian  and 
Hebrew,  but  had  changed  both,  which  would  account  for 
the  "very  slight  resemblance,"  and  yet  for  his  inability  to 
read  them.  And  of  course  anything  that  Mr.  Moldenke 
cannot  read  is  to  him  an  "idiotic  scribble." 

Messrs.  Angell  and  Davis  are  very  positive  that  the 
Hebrews  never  kept  their  records  on  brass.  Mr.  Moidenke 
very  properly  qualifies  the  statement  with  the  words,  "as 
far  as  I  know."  It  would  have  been  far  safer  if  the  other 
two  gentlemen  had  made  some  such  qualification;  but  like 
many  other  men  blessed  with  a  little  learning,  they 
assume  that  what  they  do  not  know  does  not  exist. 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  135 

The  occasion  for  this  issue  being  raised  is  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  claims  that  Lehi  and  family  brought  with  them 
to  this  land  plates  of  brass  containing  the  genealogies  of 
their  forefathers,  and  Mr.  Bays  seeks  to  prove  that  the 
Hebrews  never  wrote  on  brass,  in  order  to  throw  discredit 
on  this  account.  He  succeeds  in  getting  these  two  men  to 
say  what  he  wanted  them  to  say.  To  these  he  also  adds 
brief  quotations  from  letters  he  claims  to  have  received 
from  President  Harper,  of  Chicago  University,  and 
Professor  Price,  of  the  same  institution. 

Notwithstanding  these  opinions  of  these  learned  gentle- 
men, there  is  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  wrote  records  on 
brass,  as  the  following  quotations  will  show: 

The  materials  generally  used  by  the  ancients  for  their  books, 
were  liable  to  be  easily  destroyed  by  the  damp,  when  hidden  in 
the  earth;  and  in  times  of  war,  devastation,  and  rapacity,  it  was 
necessary  to  bury  in  the  earth  whatever  they  wished  to  preserve 
from  the  attacks  of  fraud  and  violence.  With  this  view,  Jeremiah 
ordered  the  writings,  which  he  delivered  to  Baruch,  to  be  put 
in  an  earthen  vessel,  Jer.  32.  In  the  same  manner,  the  ancient 
Egyptians  made  use  of  earthen  urns,  or  pots  of  a  proper  shape, 
for  containing  whatever  they  wanted  to  inter  in  the  earth,  and 
which,  without  such  care,  would  have  been  soon  destroyed. 
We  need  not  wonder  then,  that  the  prophet  Jeremiah  should 
think  it  necessary  to  inclose  those  writings  in  an  earthen  pot, 
which  were  to  be  buried  in  Judea,  in  some  place  where  they 
might  be  found  without  much  difficulty  on  the  return  of  the 
Jews  from  captivity.  Accordingly,  two  different  writings,  or 
small  rolls  of  writing,  called  books  in  the  original  Hebrew, 
were  designed  to  be  inclosed  in  such  an  earthen  vessel;  but  com- 
mentators have  been  much  embarrassed  in  giving  any  probable 
account  of  the  necessity  of  two  writings,  one  sealed,  the  other 
open;  or,  as  the  passage  has  been  commonly  understood,  the 
one  sealed  up,  the  other  left  open  for  any  one  to  read:  more 
especially,  as  both  were  to  be  alike  buried  in  the  earth  and  con- 
cealed from  every  eye,  and  both  were  to  be  examined  at  the 
return  from  the  captivity.  — Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowl- 
edge, by  Rev.  B.  B.  Edwards,  1850,  pp.  255,  256. 

By  the  above  we  see  that  the  claim  made  that  the  record 
of  the  Nephites  was  buried  in  earth  in  a  time  of  war,  was 
in  harmony  with  Jewish  custom,  and  also  that  the  claim 


136  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

that  a  part  of  the  record  was  sealed  and  a  part  unsealed 
was  in  harmony  with  custom.  This  same  authority 
continues  as  follows: 

If  the  ancient  books  were  large,  they  were  formed  of  a  num- 
ber of  ski  us,  of  a  number  of  pieces  of  linen  and  collon  cloili,  or 
of  papyrus,  or  parchment,  connected  together.  The  leaves 
were  rarely  written  over  on  both  sides,  Ezek.  2:9.  Zech.  5:1. 
Books,  when  written  upon  very  flexible  materials,  were,  as 
stated  above,  rolled  round  a  stick;  and,  if  they  were  wry  long, 
round  two.  from  the  two  extremities.  The  reader  unrolled  the 
book  to  the  place  which  he  wanted,  and  rolled  it  up  again, 
when  he  had  read  it,  Luke  4:  17-20;  whence  the  name  magelle,  a 
volume,  or  thing  rolled  up,  Psalm  40:7.  Isaiah  34:4.  E/ek.  2: 
9.  2  Kings  19:  14.  Ezra  0:2.  The  leaves  thus  rolled  round  the 
stick,  which  has  been  mentioned,  and  bound  with  a  string, 
could  be  easily  sealed,  Isaiah  21):  1 1  Dan.  1^:4.  Rev.  5:1.  (5:7. 
Those  books  which  were  inscribed  on  tablets  of  wood,  lead, 
brass,  or  ivory,  were  connected  together  by  rings  at  the  back, 
through  which  a  rod  was  passed  to  carry  them  by.  The 
orientals  appear  to  have  taken  pleasure  in  giving  tropical  or 
.enigmatical  titles  to  their  books.  The  titles  prefixed  to  the 
fifty-sixth,  sixtieth,  and  eightieth  psalms  appear  to  be  of  this 
description.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  David's  elegy 
upon  Saul  and  Jonathan,  2  Sam.  1:  18,  is  called  in  Hebrew  the  bow, 
in  conformity  with  this  peculiarity  of  taste. — Ibid.,  p.  257. 

In  this  we  discover  two  more  points  in  harmony  with 
the  account  of  the  Book  of  Mormon: 

1.  Metallic  plates  were  fastened  together  with  rings  at 
the  back,  just  as  the  plates  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  were 
said  to  have  been  fastened. 

2.  Books   were    inscribed   on   tablets   of    different  sub- 
stances including   Lrass,   the  very  material   brought   into 
question  by  Elder  Bays  and  his  witnesses. 

In  his  very  popular  work  published  in  1833,  entitled, 
"Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures"  in  footnote  on  page  47,  volume  2,  Thomas 
H.  Home,  M.  A.,  while  discussing  Hebrew  manuscripts, 
stated  as  follows: 

See  Mr.  Thomas  Yeates's  "Collation  of  an  Indian  copy  of 
the  Pentateuch,  with  preliminary  remarks,  containing  an 
exact  description  of  the  manuscript,  and  a  notice  of  some 


o 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  137 


others,  Hebrew  and  Syriac,  collected  by  the  Rev.  C.  Buchanan, 
D.  D.  in  the  year  180(>.  and  now  deposited  in  ihe  Public 
Library,  Cambridge.  Also  a  collation  and  description  of  a 
manuscript  roll  of  ihe  Book  of  Esther,  and  the  M'egrllah  of 
Ahnstierus.  from  the  Hebrew  copy,  originally  extant  in  brazen 
tablets  at  Goa:  with  an  English  Translation."  pp.  2,  3,  0,  7. 
Cambridge,  1812. 

Here  we  have  books  written  in  Hebrew  on  'brazen 
tablets,  a  copy  of  which  is  now  in  the  public  library, 
Cambridge. 

The  "Union  Bible  Dictionary"  published  by  the  "Ameri- 
can Sunday  School  Union,"  1842,  under  the  article  Book, 
states: 

Book.  (Ex.  17:14.)  What  we  call  books  were  unknown  to 
the  ancient  Jews,  at  least  in  their  present  convenient  form. 
Letters  were  engraved  on  stone,  brick,  metal,  (as  lead  and 
copper.)  or  wood,  and  also  on  cloth  and  skins,  and  at  a  later 
period  on  parchment.  (2  Tim.  4:13.)  Tablets  of  lead  and 
brass  or  copper,  of  great  antiquity,  have  been  discovered  in 
modern  times. 

A  summary  of  Biblical  Antiquities  by  J.  W.  Nivens, 
D.  D.,  published  by  same  firm  as  the  dictionary,  says: 

Some  refer  the  origin  of  writing  to  the  time  of  Moses;  others, 
to  that  of  Abraham;  while  a  still  different  opinion  throws  it 
back  to  the  age  of  Adam  himself. 

It  was  long,  however,  before  the  art  came  to  be  used  with 
anything  like  that  convenience  and  ease  which  are  now  known. 
The  materials  and  instruments  with  which  it  was  performed, 
were,  in  comparison  with  our  pen,  ink  and  paper,  extremely 
rude  and  unwieldy.  One  of  the  earliest  methods  was  to  cut  out 
the  letters  on  a  tablet  of  stone.  Another,  was  to  trace  them  on 
unbaked  tiles,  or  bricks,  which  were  afterwards  thoroughly 
burned  with  fire.  Tablets  (that  is,  small,  level  surfaces  or 
plates)  of  'lead  or  brass  were  sometimes  employed.  When  the 
writing  was  wanted  to  be  most  durable,  the  last  was  chosen. 
Tablets  of  wood  were  more  convenient.  Such  was  the  writing 
table  which  Zacharias  used.  —  Pages  158,  159. 

Brass,  then,  was  used  where  writings  were  desired  to  be 
most  durable.  Genealogies  are  just  what  they  would  most 
wish  to  preserve,  and  they  would  be  likely  to  write  them 
on  brass.  This  array  of  evidence  will  show  that  Messrs. 
Angell,  Davis,  Harper,  and  Price  were  too  hasty  and  too 


138  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

positive,  and  should  have  modestly  said  with  Mr.  Moldenke, 
"As  far  as  I  know,"  etc. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Professor  Anthon  admits  that 
the  "singular  scrawl"  was  so  well  executed  as  to  make  it 
apparent  that  the  person  writing  it  "had  before  him  at  the 
time  a  book  containing  various  alphabets."  This  was 
itself  remarkable  for  a  person  as  unlearned  and  unskillful 
as  Joseph  Smith  is  reported  to  have  been;  and  so  clever 
was  the  imitation,  according  to  Professor  Anthon,  that 
Dr.  Mitchill  did  not  detect  the  "hoax"  or  "fraud."  The 
plain,  unvarnished  statements  of  Joseph  Smith  regarding 
his  experience  are  more  reasonable  and  consistent  than  the 
illogical  and  conflicting  theories  resorted  to  to  set  aside  his 
testimony. 

The  theory  of  Professor  Anthon  is  hardly  a  tenable  one. 
It  is  this,  that  a  rogue  had  undertaken  to  deceive  a  simple 
farmer  by  representing  that  he  had  found  gold  plates 
containing  ancient  and  valuable  records,  which  if  trans- 
lated would  save  the  world  from  destruction,  and  all  this 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  money  from  the  simple  farmer. 
Then  this  rogue  who  was  such  a  clever  imitator  as  to 
deceive  Dr.  Mitchill  placed  the  very  means  of  detection  in 
the  hands  of  the  farmer  by  sending  him  with  the  fraudu- 
lent characters  to  linguists.  That  would  have  been  the 
last  thing  that  a  rogue  would  have  done,  and  the  very 
fact  that  Joseph  Smith  sent  Harris  there  is  strong  pre- 
sumptive evidence  that  Joseph  Smith  was  sincere  in  the 
belief  that  the  plates  in  his  possession  were  genuine. 

These  learned  witnesses  of  Mr.  Bays  are  quite  positive 
that  the  Hebrews  never  wrote  in  the  Egyptian  language. 
It  may  be  that  no  instance  of  the  kind  is  known  to  them; 
but  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  they  were  in  captivity 
in  Egypt  for  over  four  hundred  years,  and  never  acquired 
the  art  of  writing  the  language.  Considering  their  long 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  claim  of  Nephi  as  recorded  in  the 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  139 

Book  of  Mormon,  "I  make  a  record  in  the  language  of  my 
father,  which  consists  of  the  learning  of  the  Jews  and  the 
language  of  the  Egyptians,"  is  not  unreasonable.  If  true 
that  no  instance  of  the  .Tews  writing  in  the  Egyptian 
language  is  known  to  the  scholarship  of  the  time,  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon  was  a  fraud  from  its  inception,  the  per- 
petrators of  the  fraud  would  have  carefully  avoided 
making  a  statement  such  as  the  one  quoted  from  Nephi 
above. 

When  the  book  makes  a  claim  for  which  there  is  no 
direct  proof,  and  yet  the  claim  is  in  perfect  accord  with 
what  might  reasonably  be  expected,  it  is  strong  pre- 
sumptive evidence  that  fraud  was  not  attempted.  We 
have  already  shown  that  these  scholarly  men  use  language 
that  is  too  positive,  and  that  when  they  say  a  thing  is  not 
so  they  only  mean  to  say  that  they  do  not  know^that  it  is 
so.  A  moment's  reflection  will  convince  anyone  that  when 
these  scholars  say  they  did  not  write  on  brass,  they  did 
not  write  the  Egyptian  language,  they  are  saying  some- 
thing they  are  not  authorized  to  say.  They  do  not,  they 
cannot  know.  Had  they  said,  We  have  no  knowledge  that 
such  was  the  case,  they  probably  would  have  told  the 
absolute  truth.  The  reader  will  pardon  us  if  we  relate  a 
little  incident  that  occurred  a  few  years  ago  in  the  Indian 
Territory,  as  it  will  illustrate  our  point.  A  minister  had 
delivered  a  discourse  in  which  he  strongly  urged  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  its  inspirational  and  wonder-working  power 
was  not  enjoyed  in  this  age.  He  was  approached  by  an 
old  colored  man  when  the  following  conversation  took 
place: 

"Massa,  you  said  something  that  you  oughtn't  to  have 
said." 

"What  was  that,  uncle?" 

"You  said  there  wasn't  any  Holy  Ghost  in  our  time." 

"Well,  what  ought  I  to  have  said?" 


140  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

"You  ought  to  have  said,  Not  that  you  knows  of." 

It  appears  to  us  that  these  eminent  professors  would 
have  acted  the  wiser  part,  if,  according  to  the  old  gentle- 
man's logic,  they  had  answered  Elder  Bays  by  saying, 
"Not  that  we  knows  of."  To  say  a  thing  never  happened 
is  to  say  we  know  everything  that  did  happen. 

Elder  Bays  closes  with  the  following: 

The  question  now  stands  thus: 

THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THREE    GREAT   SCHOLARS, 

VS. 
THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THREE   WITNESSES. 

Reader,  in  the  light  of  all  the  facts,  whose  word  will  you  take 
in  this'Cuse?  The  whole  question  may  be  summed  up  in  a  sin- 
gle proposition.  If  Mormon  ism  is  true,  the  plates  must  have 
been  written  in  Egyptian.  The  plates  were  not  written  in  Ejryp- 
itian.  Therefore  Mormonism  is  not  true.  And  if  Mormonism  is 
not  true,  then  the  three  witnesses  were  deceivers,  Joseph  Smith 
was  an  impostor,  and  the  Mormon  Church  a  fraud.  There  is 
KIO  possible  means  of  escape  from  this  conclusion.  "Choose  ye 
lihis  day  whom  ye  will  s^rve."— Pages  275,  270. 

No,  Elder  Bays,  the  case  stands  thus:  THE  TESTIMONY 
Otf  THREE  GREAT  SCHOLARS  that  they  do  not  know, 

vs. 
THE  TESTIMONY  OF   THREE  WITNESSES   that   they  do    know. 

In  concluding  this  chapter  we  present  the  testimony  of 
the  three  witnesses,  recommending  their  testimony  to 
careful  and  prayerful  consideration: 

Be  it  known  unto  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues,  and  people, 
unto  whom  this  work  shall  come,  that  we,  through  the  grace 
of  God  the  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  have  seen  the 
plates  which  contain  this  record,  which  is  a  record  of  the 
people  of  Nephi,  and  also  of  the  Lamanites,  his  brethren,  and 
also  of  the  people  of  Jared,  which  came  from  the  tower  of 
which  hath  been  spoken;  and  we  also  know  that  they  have 
been  translated  \)\  the  gift  and  power  of  God,  for  his  voice 
hath  declared  it  unto  us;  wherefore  we^know  of  a  surety,  that 
the  work  is  true.  And  we  also  testify' that  we  have  seen  the 
engravings  which  are  upon  the  plates;  and  they  have  been 


REPLY   TO    D.   H.   BAYS.  141 

shewn  unto  us  by  the  power  of  God,  and  not  of  man.  And  we 
declare  with  words  of  soberness,  that  an  Angel  of  God  came 
down  from  heaven,  and  he  brought  and  laid  before  our  eyes, 
that  we  beheld  and  saw  the  plates,  and  the  engravings  thereon; 
and  we  know  that  it  is  by  the  grace  of  God  the  Father,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  beheld  and  bear  record  that  these 
things  are  true;  and  it,  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes:  Nevertheless, 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  commanded  us  that  we  should  bear 
record  of  it;  wherefore,  to  be  obedient  unto  the  commandments 
of  God,  we  bear  testimony  of  these  things.  —  And  we  know  that 
if  we  are  faithful  in  Christ,  we  shall  rid  our  garments  of  the 
blood  of  all  men,  and  be  found  spotless  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ,  and  shall  dwell  with  him  eternally  in  the 
heavens.  And  the  honor  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  one  God.  Amen. 

OLIVER  COWDERY, 
DAVID  WHITMER, 
MARTIN  HARRIS. 

In  connection  with  this  testimony,  consider  that  these 
men  had  no  promise  of  wealth  or  praise,  and  yet  they 
bore  the  testimony  fearlessly,  sending  it  to  the  world  with 
an  unpopular  publication  in  the  hands  of  a  persecuted  and 
despised  man.  They  adhered  to  that  testimony  through 
the  most  adverse  circumstances  during  life,  and  each  died 
with  the  testimony  upon  his  lips.  Elder  Bays  and  others 
may  hurl  unsavory  epithets  at  the  memory  of  these  men, 
but  when  they  state  that  they  or  any  one  of  them  ever 
wavered  in  his  testimony,  they  state  that  for  which  they 
have  no  proof.  In  this  connection  also  consider  the  follow- 
ing testimony  of  eight  witnesses,  of  whose  fidelity  and 
faithfulness  all  can  be  said  that  we  have  said  of  the  three: 

Be  it  known  unto  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues,  and  people, 
unto  whom  this  work  shall  come,  that  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.  the 
Author  and  Proprietor  of  this  work,  has  shewn  unto  us  the 
plates  of  which  hath  been  spoken,  which  have  the  appearance 
of  gold:  and  as  many  of  the  leaves  as  the  said  Smith  has  trans- 
lated, we  did  handle  with  our  hands;  and  we  also  saw  the 
engravings  thereon,  all  of  which  has  the  appearance  of  ancient 
work,  and  of  curious  workmanship.  And  this  we  bear  record, 
with  words  of  soberness,  that  the  said  Smith  has  shewn  unto 
us,  Cor  we  have  seen  and  hefted,  and  know  of  a  surety,  that  the 
said  Smith  has  got  the  plates  of  which  we  have  spoken.  And 


14?  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

we  give  our  names  unto  the  world,  to  witness  unto  the  world 
that  which  we  have  seen:  and  we  lie  not,  God  bearing  witness 
of  it.  CHRISTIAN  WHITMEK, 

JACOB  WHITMER, 
PETER  WHITMER,  Jr. 
JOHN  WHITMER, 
HIRAM  PAGE, 
JOSEPH  SMITH,  Sen. 
HYRUM  SMITH, 
SAMUEL  H.  SMITH. 


CHAPTER  7. 

Doctrine  —  Faith  —  Repentance  —  Baptism  —  Laying  on   of 
Hands  — Resurrection  and   Eternal  Judgment. 

CHAPTERS  twenty-nine,  thirty,  and  thirty-one  of  Elder 
Bays'  book  may  properly  be  grouped  together,  as  they 
are  devoted  to  the  same  purpose,  namely,  an  attack  upon 
what  he  is  pleased  to  call  "The  Doctrines  of  Mormonism." 
He  commences  this  review  by  another  misrepresentation 
of  our  position.  He  states: 

The  Saints  believe  that,  in  order  to  be  received  into  the 
"celestial  glory, "a  man  must  obey  that  form  of  doctrine  which 
they  teach.  If  he  comes  short  of  this,  that  is,  if  he  does  not 
formally  obey  the  Gospel  as  they  teach  it,  he  must  be  damned. 
The  logical  conclusion  is,  that  none  but  Latter  Day  Saints  will 
"be  saved  in  the  celestial  kingdom."— Page  277. 

Our  position  is  that  celestial  glory  is  contingent  upon 
obedience  to  the  gospel  as  Jesus  Christ  taught  it.  We 
believe,  as  Elder  Bays  well  knows,  that  every  man  will  be 
judged,  rewarded  or  punished,  according  to  the  good  or 
evil  he  shall  have  done.  Our  reward  or  punishment  will 
be  in  proportion  to  the  light  we  have  received,  and  the 
practical  righteousness  we  have  obeyed.  And  what  is 
true  of  us  is  true  of  all  other  people.  Believing  firmly  in 
this  principle  of  justice  and  equity,  we  have  each  indi- 
vidually decided  that  we  preferred  to  take  our  chances 
with  the  Latter  Day  Saints  and  in  the  doctrines  advocated 
by  them.  In  doing  this  we  do  not  deny  the  right  of  choice 
to  anyone  else.  If  Elder  Bays  decides  that  his  chances 
are  better  with  the  Christian  people  it  is  his  privilege  to 
go  there,  and  the  judgment  is  not  to  be  rendered  by  either 

Elder  Bays,  ourselves,  or  any  other  in  mortality,  but  by 

143 


144  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Him    whose    judgment    is    just,    and    whose    wisdom    is 
supreme.     Elder  Bays  quotes  as  follows: 

"Whosoever  transgresseth  and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  hath  not  God.  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  .of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  (2  John  9.) 

"Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
let  us  go  on  unto  perfection;  not  laying  again  the  foundation 
of  repentance  from  dead  "works,  and  of  faith  towards  (Jod,  of  the 
doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment.11  (Heb.  (5:  1,  2.) — 
Pages  277,  278. 

Of  these  texts  he  remarks: 

From  a  doctrinal  point  of  view  this  is  the  citadel  of  the 
Snints.  and  is  regarded  as  a  veritable  Gibraltar,  and  absolutely 
impregnable. — Page  279. 

iilluer  Bays  then  lays  down  his  premise  as  follows: 

First:  Nowhere  in  all  the  teachings  of  Christ,  as  they  are 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures —not  even  in  the  "Inspired  Transla- 
tion"-do  we  find  that  he  either  taught  or  practiced  that  form  of 
doctrine  urged  by  the  Saints  as  being  necessary  to  salvation. 

Second:  Paul  does  not  even  hint  that  the  six  propositions 
named  in  the  two  verses  quoted  are  to  be  observed  as  a  means  of 
salvation. 

Third:  The  apostle  does  not  declare  these  six  propositions  to 
be  "principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ."  This  is  only  the  con- 
struction put  upon  the  passage  by  the  Saints,  Paul's  allusion  to 
them  being  purely  incidental. 

Fourth:  The  six  propositions  named  are  propositions  of  the 
Mosaic  ltw.  and  not  "principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ." — 
Pages  279,  280. 

The  first  three  propositions  of  his  premise  we  think  it 
unnecessary  to  discuss.  We  simply  invite  the  reader  to 
examine  the  texts  with  their  contexts  and  weigh  Mr.  Bays1 
onclusions  in  the  light  of  faots  and  common  sense. 

Nor  does  his  fourth  proposition  require  very  much 
thought.  The  absurdity  of  the  declaration  that  "faith 
towards  God"  and  "repentance  from  dead  works"  are  "not 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ"  will  at  once  be  recog- 
nized. Principles  of  the  old  law  they  may  have  been;  but 
while  the  law  as  such  was  abrogated,  the  principles  of 
truth  it  contained  remained.  Truth  is  indestructible. 


I 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  145 


In  Mr.  Bays'  effort  to  sustain  this  proposition  he 
attempts  to  show  that  there  is  a  difference  between  "faith 
towards  God,"  and  "faith  in  Christ."  In  doing  this  he 
overlooks  the  following  passages:  "Ye  believe  in  God, 
believe  also  in  me"  (John  14: 1),  showing  that  to  believe  in 
.one  is  to  believe  in  the  other. 

And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat 
before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house. 
—Acts  16:34. 

Elder  Bays  would  say  that  the  jailer  did  not  believe  in 
the  gospel,  but  in  the  Mosaic  law,  because  it  is  said  he 
believed  in  God  instead  of  saying  he  believed  in  Christ. 

This  is  a  faithful  savin)?,  and  these  thinsrs  I  will  that  thou 
affirm  constantly,  That  they  which  have  believed  in  God  might 
be  careful  to  maintain  good  works. — Titus  3:8. 

According  to  Mr.  Bays  the  apostle  instructed  Titus  to 
affirm  constantly  the  works  of  the  old  Mosaic  law — belief 
in  God.  Paul  in  his  treatise  on  faith  said: 

But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him:  for  he  that 
comelh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him. — Heb.  11:6. 

Here  faith  in  God  is  enjoined,  and  as  in  Hebrews  6:  2, 
faith  in  Christ  is  omitted.  Shall  we,  then,  say,  with  Elder 
Bays,  that  the  faith  enjoined  by  Paul  was  of  the  old 
Mosaic  law? 

For  from  you  sounded  out  the  word  of  the  Lord  not  only  in 
Macedonia  and  Acluiia.  but  also  in  every  pla,ce  your  faith  to 
God-ward  is  spread  abroad;  so  that  we  need  not  to  speak  any- 
thing.- 1  Thess.  1:8. 

Was  the  faith  of  the  Thessalonian  saints  ccto  God-ward" 
of  the  Mosaic  law?.  The  Apostle  Peter  taught  that  it  was 
through  the  "precious  blood  of  Christ"  and  the  raising  him 
from  the  grave,  and  giving  him  glory  that  our  faith  is  in 
God.  Hear  him: 

But  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot:  who  verily  was  foreordained  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  manifest  in  these  last 


146  REPLY   TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

times  for  you,  who  by  him  do  believe  in  God,  that  raised  him 
up  from  the  dead,  and  gave  him  glory;  that  your  faith  and 
hope  might  be  in  God. — 1  Peter  1: 19-21. 

In  addition  to  these  passages  observe  the  admonition  of 
the  Christ  to  his  disciples: 

Have  faith  in  God.— Mark  11:22. 

Was  Jesus  exhorting  his  disciples  to  turn  back  to  the 
Mosaic  law? 

To  continue  the  argument  on  this  point  is  useless. 
Elder  Bays  is  certainly  wrong  when  he  says  that  "faith 
toward  God"  is  not  a  principle  "of  the  doctrine  of  Christ." 

Elder  Bays  assumes  that  "repentance  from  dead  works" 
had  reference  to  the  dead  works  of  the  law.  We  think  it 
had  a  broader  meaning;  but  suppose  we  admit  Mr.  Bays' 
conclusion,  what  then?  The  works  of  the  law  were  not 
dead  while  they  were  in  force.  It  was  by  the  substitution 
of  the  gospel  that  the  works  of  the  law  became  dead. 
Hence  it  was  under  the  gospel  economy  that  men  were 
required  to  repent  "from  dead  works."  It  will  thus  be 
seen  that  "repentance  from  dead  works"  is  a  principle  "of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  and  Bays  is  again  wrong. 

Then  taking  up  baptisms  as  spoken  of  in  Hebrews  6:  2, 
he  assumes  as  a  premise  the  point  at  issue.  He  says: 

Since  the  apostle  is  writing  of  the  law  and  not  of  the  Gospel, 
the  "baptisms"  here  mentioned  are  the  baptisms,  or  divers 
washings,  imposed  by  law,  they  can,  therefore,  have  no  possi- 
ble reference  to  Christian  baptism.  Nowhere  do  the  Scriptures 
mention  two  Christian  baptisms. — Page  287. 

As  well  might  we  say:  Since  the  apostle  is  writing  of 
the  gospel  and  not  of  the  law,  the  "baptisms"  here  men- 
tioned are  Christian  baptisms.  If  a  man  be  permitted 
to  assume  the  point  at  issue  as  a  premise,  he  can 
easily  make  a  logical  deduction  favorable  to  his  conclu- 
sion; but  such  controversy  is  not  admissible  and  will  be 
strongly  condemned  by  logicians.  But  says  Elder  Bays: 

Nowhere  do  the  Scriptures  mention  two  Christian  baptisms. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  147 

Not  so  fast,  Elder  Bays,  or  you  may  get  into  another 
difficulty. 

I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto. repentance:  but  lie  that 
cometli  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear:  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
with  fire.-  Matt.  3:  11. 

I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water:  but  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Hol3r  Ghost. — Mark  1 :  H. 

John  answered,  saying  unto  them  all,  I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  water;  but  one  mightier  than  I  cometh,  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose:  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  -  Luke  3: 16. 

And  I  knew  him  not:  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with 
water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the 
Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which 
baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost. — John  1:33. 

Here  are  two  separate  and  distinct  baptisms,  and  Elder 
Bays  will  not  say  that  the  water  baptism  is  not  Christian; 
while  the  Spirit  baptism  was  to  be  administered  by  Christ 
himself — hence  is  eminently  Christian. 

On  the  subject  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  for  the  recep- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Mr.  Bays  makes  a -prolonged 
effort  to  show  that  it  is  not  now,  and  that  it  was  never 
essential.  He  admits  that  it  was  practiced  at  Samaria  by 
Peter  and  John,  and  at  Ephesus  by  Paul;  but  affirms  that 
"not  only  in  .the  two  cases"  "do  the  writers  fail  to  name 
the  purpose  of  this  cenmony,  but  nowhere  in  all  the  New 
Testament  is  the  object  stated."  If  this  is  true  there  was 
either  an  unstated  object,  or  the  apostles  practiced  this 
ceremony  with  no  object  in  view.  The  latter  possibility  is 
not  reasonable.  The  Lord  Jesus  had  sent  them,  out  to 
build  up  his  kingdom,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
they  had  some  definite  object  in  view  in  all  the  acts  of 
their  ministry.  He  says  of  these  two  cases: 

To  pray  for  the  Samaritans  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit  seems  to  have  been  the  prime  object  of  the  visit  of  the 
apostles  to  Samaria,  while  the  laying  on  of  hands  WMS  purely 
incidental,  and  the  object  of  it  is  not  mentioned.  Just  why 
the  apostles  laid  their  hands  upon  these  new  converts  does  not 


148  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

appear;  but   that   the   reception    of   the   Holy   Spirit   followed 
there  can  be  no  question. — Page  21)6. 

A  similar  incident  occurred  at  Ephesus,  under  the  ministry 
of  St.  Paul.  Like  the  Samaritans,  these  Gentile  converts  had 
been  idolaters,  and  did  not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  till  after 
Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them  (see  Acts  19:1-0.)  But  as 
in  the  case  of  the  Samaritans,  there  is  not  the  slightest  intima- 
tion given  as  to  why  the  ceremony  was  performed.  — Page  297. 

However,  in  both  these  instances  Elder  Bays  admits 
that  the  reception  of  the  Spirit  followed  the  laying  on  of 
bands,  but  does  not  wish  to  admit  that  the  one  had  any 
connection  with  the  other.  Upon  this  point  he  says: 

It  is  true  that  when  the  people  of  Samaria  had  received  the 
word  of  G<>d  under  the  preaching  of  Philip,  they  did  not 
receive  the  Holy  Spirit  until  after  the  apostles,  Peter  and  John, 
-had  laid  their  hands  upon  them.  But  this  by  no  means  proves 
that  this  was  the  law  through  which  they  were  to  receive  it. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  circumstance  to  warrant  the  belief 
that  the  Samaritans  could  not  and  would  not  have  received  the 
Spirit  without  the  performance  of  such  a  ceremony.— -Page  295. 

Then  he  makes  one  of  those  peculiar  flops  that  few  men 
can  make  without  blushing,  and  admits  all  he  has  con- 
tended against  in  order  to  save  another  point.  He  says: 

That  the  apostles  on  this  particular  occasion  gave  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  did  also  the  apostle  Paul  at  Ephesus,  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands,  even  the  unresrenerate  Simon  could  plainly  see,  and 
which,  therefore,  we  may  not  question.  But  to  say  that  it  was 
therefore  an  ordinance  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  be  handed 
down  side  by  side  with  Christian  baptism  is  wholly  gratuitous, 
having  not  the  shadow  of  support  in  the  Word  of  God. — 
Pages  297,  298. 

Here  he  makes  the  admission  that  the  receiving  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  the  immediate  result  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  a  thing  he  had  previously  denied,  but  insists  that 
it  was  not  "an  ordinance  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to*  be 
handed  down  side  by  side  with  Christian  baptism." 

Why  not?  Because,  says  Bays,  it  has  "not  the  shadow 
of  support  in  the  Word  of  God."  Will  Elder  Bays  please 
point  out  the  passage  where  it  is  said  specifically  that 
Christian  baptism  is  to  be  handed  down  as  an  ordinance 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  149 

of  the  Church  of  Christ?  Elder  Bays  would  argue,  and 
very  correctly,  too,  that  as  baptism  was  taught  and 
practiced  by  the  early  church  it  should  be  observed  by 
Christians  now.  Then  why  can  he  not  apply  the  same 
logic  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  reason  that  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  given  "by  the  laying  on  of  hands"  that  it 
should  be  observed  for  that  purpose  by  Christians  yet? 
But  says  Elder  Bays,  though  they  practiced  it  they  did 
not  teach  it.  Then  they  practiced  what  they  did  not 
teach,  did  they?  If  so,  why?  Let  Bays  answer: 

The  laying  on  of  hands  being  of  Jewish  origin,  the  Hebrew 
Christians  were  very  tenacious  of  its  observance.  Having 
been  accustomed  to  it  all  their  lives,  it  was,  like  any  other 
habit  or  tradition,  very  difficult,  indeed,  for  them  to  break 
away  from  it.  With  characteristic  tenacity,  they  clung  to 
the  traditions  of  their  fathers  so  closely  that  Jesus  often 
rebuked  them  very  sharply.  To  their  teachers  he  atone  time 
said,  "Why  do  ye  also  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by 
your  traditions?"  (Matt.  15:3.) 

And  at  another: 

"Howbeit,  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men.  .  .  .  Pull  well  ye  reject  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition." 
(Mark  7:7,  9.)— Page  299. 

Then  the  apostles  were  following  an  old  Jewish  custom, 
and  yet  it  resulted  in  the  giving  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
baptized  converts.  Elder  Bays  has  the  Lord  rebuking 
them  for  their  traditions  at  one  time,  but  this  time  he  has 
him  blessing  them  with  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  same  thing. 

Bays  is  mistaken  again,  however.  "Hebrew  Christians" 
are  not  referred  to  in  the  citations  he  makes.  In 
Matthew  15:3  he  is  addressing  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
and  in  Mark  7:7,  9,  the  same  circumstance  is  related. 

But  let  us  go  back  to  the  question,  Do  the  scriptures 
teach  the  laying  on  of  hands?  In  connection  with  the 
event  before  related  at  Samaria  we  read: 

And  when  Simon  saw  that  through  laying  on  of  the  apostles' 
hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he  offered  them  money, 
saying,  Give  me  also  this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay 


150  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

hands,  he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  Peter  said  unto 
him.  Thy  money  perish  with  ihee,  because  thou  hast  thought 
that  the  gift  oi'  God  may  be  purchased  with  money.  — Acts 
8:  18-20. 

Here  Simon  offers  to  pui'chase,  not  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
some  suppose,  but  the  "power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay 
hands,  he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost."  Peter  rebukes 
him  for  having  "thought  that  the  gift  of  God  may  be  pur- 
chased with  money."  We  have  too  much  confidence  in 
Peter  to  believe  that  he  would  declare  that  the  power  to 
lay  on  hands  for  the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  gift  of 
God  if  he  had  not  received  it  from  God.  Numerous  other 
passages  might  be  cited,  but  this  is  sufficient. 

Elder  Bays  says: 

It  is  incredible  to  believe  that  if  this  so-called  ordinance  had 
been  intended  as  an  ordinance  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  church, 
Peier  would  have  failed  to  declare  it  on  Pentecost  while  filled 
with  the  Spirit  to  proclaim  the  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel  at 
the  very  opening  of  the  new  dispensation.  That  he  made  no 
reference  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  when  answering  the  ques- 
tions of  inquiring  penitents  may  be  regarded  as  proof  that 
Peter  did  not  consider  it  to  be  a  matter  that  in  any  way  related 
to  their  salvation.  —  Page  294. 

How  does  Elder  Bays  know  that  he  did  not  so  teach  on 
Pentecost?  We  have  a  few  things  Peter  said  on  Pentecost 
recorded,  and  then  we  have  this  brief  summary:  "And 
with  many  other  words  did  he  testify  and  exhort."  Here, 
then,  were  both  testimony  and  exhortation  that  are  not 
given.  When  he  afterwards  declares  that  the  power  to 
lay  on  hands  was  a  "gift  of  God,"  we  reasonably  infer  that 
this  was  one  of  the  other  things  taught  on  Pentecost. 
These  proofs  in  connection  with  the  positive  declaration 
that  the  laying  on  of  hands  with  other  things  were  princi- 
ples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  is  surely  enough. 

Elder  Bays  then  enters  into  an  exhaustive  examination 
to  show  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  does  not  teach  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  but  we  have  already  exposed  his  error  in  this. 
He  cites  instances  in  church  history  where  men  received 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  151 

the  Holy  Ghost  though  there  is  no  record  of  their  having 
hands  laid  upon  them,  and  jumps  at  the  conclusion  that 
therefore  hands  were  not  laid  upon  them.  As  well  might 
he  argue  that  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  were  not 
baptized  because  there  is  no  specific  record  of  it. 

Then  coming  to  the  principles  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  and  eternal  judgment,  Elder  Bays  states: 

THE   RESURRECTION    OF   THE   DEAD,    AND   ETERNAL  JUDGMENT. 

These  two  principles  were  taught  in  the  law  and  the  prophets 
.  as  being  in  prospect- something  to  be  revealed  in  the  dim, 
distant  future;  but  now  the  apostle  wishes  to  assure  these 
Hebrew  Christians  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  has  been 
demonstrated  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  must,  there- 
fore, be  regarded  as  an  established  fact  of  the  Gospel. — 
Page  315. 

When  Elder  Bays  star  ted.  out  to  prove  that  "the  six 
propositions  named  [faith,  repentance,  baptisms,  laying 
on  of  hands,  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  eternal  judg- 
ment] are  propositions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  not 
'principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,'"  and  then  after 
over  a  forty-page  effort  he  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  "an  established  fact 
of  the  Gospel,"  he  has  arrived  at  a  climax  of  absurdity 
that  is  too  ridiculous  to  be  even  amusing. 

Elder  Bays  thinks  that  "these  two  principles  were 
taught  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  as  being  in  prospect — 
something  to  be  revealed  in  the  dim,  distant  future.'1 

They  are  still  in  prospect,  and  in  the  dim,  distant 
future  with  us,  are  they  not?  With  us  they  are  not 
demonstrated  facts.  We  await  their  consummation,  and 
to  us  they  are  glorious  principles  of  the  gospel.  We 
look  forward  to  their  ultimate  realization  with  joy  and 
hope,  and  without  them  the  gospel  would  have  no  charm, 
nor  incentive  to  duty. 

We  are  then  confirmed  in  our  conclusion  that  these  six 
propositions  are  fundamental  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  The  "citadel  of  the  Saints"  remains  intact. 


CHAPTER  8. 

Polygamy  —  Conflicting1  Statements  —  General  Assembly  — 
Conference  Resolution  — Hays'  Summary  —  Marriage  —  Ben- 
nett's Testimony  —  Certificates  —  Bennett's  Perfidy  -  Nauvoo 
Expositor  —  Hiram  Brown — Richard  Hewitt  Statement  of 
Emily  D.  P.  Younsr  — Of  Lovina  Walker -Of  Emma  Smith  — 
Of  Southard- Of  Mrs.  Thompson  Of  Joseph  Smith- Of  Mr. 
Soby  -  Of  Mr.  Fullmer  Of  Mr.  Grover  Of  Brigham  Young  — 
Of  Mrs.  Bidamon  —  Of  William  Marks— Factions  on  Polygamy 
— Statement  of  Robinsons. 

ELDER  BAYS  writes  his  thirty-second  chapter  under  the 
head  of  "Mormon  Polygamy  —  Was  Joseph  Smith  its 
Author?" 

As  in  almost  every  instance,  he  introduces  the  propo- 
sition by  misrepresentation.  In  order  to  make  plausible 
his  theory  that  Joseph  Smith  had  the  people  so  completely 
under  his  influence  that  he  could  with  impunity  lead  them 
into  wrongdoing  he^as  we  have  before  shown,  misquotes 
with  the  evident  intention  to  misapply  a  revelation  given 
on  April  6,  1830.  (See  page  18.)  He  then  relates  the 
action  of  a  "General  Assembly"  held  at  Kirtland,  Ohio, 
August,  1835,  in  accepting  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants,  and  follows  with  this  comment: 

At  a  semi-annual  General  Conference  of  the  Reorganized 
Church,  held  at  Galland's  Grove,  Iowa,  Sept.  20,  1877,  similar 
action  was  had.  By  the  actions  of  these  assemblies  every 
member  is  bound  to  accept  Joseph  Smith's  word  as  the  word 
of  God.  To  question  what  he  says  with  a  "thus  saith  the 
Lord"  attached  to  it,  -is  to  question  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
few  Latter  Day  Saints  have  the  moral  courage  to  do  this. 
Hence  the  servility  of  the  Saints  to  the  mandates  of  the 
prophet.  — Page  321. 

These  charges  of  moral  cowardice,  and  of  "servility"  to 
the  "mandates  of  the  prophet"  are,   as  Elder  Bays  well 
knows,  lalse.     We  speak  advisedly  when  we  say  Mr.  Bays 
152 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  153 

knew  he  was  not  speaking  the  truth.  Fortunately  we 
have  him  on  record  on  this  point.  On  June  10,  1885, 
Elder  Bays  wrote  from  Pratt,  Kansas,  as  follows: 

I  desire  to  express  my  approbation  of  the  aption  of  General 
Conference  at  its  session  at  Independence,  in  April  last, 
respecting  those  mooted  questions.  I  am  truly  glad  the 
church  would  not  allow  herself  to  be  driven  to  the  formal 
declaration  of  a  creed,  nor  the  promulgation  of  any  dogma. 
Such  a  course,  in  my  opinion,  would  have  been  damaging  to 
the  work  in  its  progress.  It  would  have  forced  many  free, 
independent,  reasoning  minds  from  the  church.  Of  all  the 
religious  bodies  in  the  world,  our  church  is  one  of  the  most 
liberal  allowing  a  broader  field  of  thought- while  at  the  same 
time  it  is  one  of  the  most  rigid  in  the  enforcement  of  its 
discipline  against  offenders  against  the  moral  code.  For  over 
half  a  century  the  church  has  flourished  and  grown  under  her 
present  rule,  without  the  formulation  of  a  written  creed, 
except  as  to  matters  of  saving  faith,  and  why  should  we  be 
disturbed  at  this  late  day?  I  concur  in  the  action  of  the  body 
declaring  the  three  books  to  contain  the  law  of  the  church,  and 
to  be  the  standard  in  every  case  where  differences  arise  between 
members  of  the  body. 

This  was  published  in  the  Saints'  Herald,  June  27,  1885. 

There  is  absolutely  no  excuse  for  Elder  Bays  making 
these  conflicting  statements.  The  subject  is  not  one  of 
exegesis,  wherein  a  man  may  honestly  change  his  opinion, 
but  it  is  a  question  of  historical  fact,  and  he  cannot  plead 
want  of  information.  He  was  in  a  position  to  know,  and 
did  know. 

Nor  does  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1835  nor 
the  action  of  General  Conference  in  1877  (1878)  admit  of  the 
construction  placed  upon  them  by  Mr.  Bays.  The  minutes 
of  the  General  Assembly  show  that  the  book  containing 
the  revelations  was  first  carefully  considered  and  adopted 
by  each  quorum  separately;  and  then  it  was  taken  to  the 
General  Assembly,  where  it  was  considered  by  the  quorums 
collectively  and  again  subjected  to  vote  of  the  assembly. 
A  committee  was  appointed  by  a  General  Assembly  held 
September  24,  1834,  consisting  of  Joseph  Smith,  Oliver 


154  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Cowdery,  Sidney  Rigdon,  and  F.  G-.  Williams,  to  compile 
the  book.  At  the  assembly  in  question,  August  17,  1835, 
this  committee  reported.  In  the  forenoon  the  assembly 
was  organized.  The  minutes  of  the  afternoon  session  read 
as  follows: 

Afternoon.  —  After  a  hymn  was  sung,  President  Cowdery 
arose  and  introduced  the  "Hook  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
of  the  Church  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,"  in  behalf  of  the 
committee.  He  was  followed  by  President  Rigdon,  who 
explained  the  manner  by  which  they  intended  to  obtain  the 
voice  of  the  assembly  for  or  against  said  book:  the  other  two 
cornmi-ttee,  named  above,  were  absent.  According  to  said 
arrangement  W.  AV.  Phelps  bore  record  that  the  book 
presented  to  the  assembly,  was  true.  President  John  Whit- 
mer  also  arose  and  testified  that  it  was  true.  Elder  John 
Smith,  taking-  the  lead  of  the  high  council  in  Kirtland,  bore 
record  that  the  revelations  in  said  book  were  true,  and  that 
the  lectures  were  judiciously  arranged  and  compiled,  and  were 
profitable  for  doctrine;  whereupon  the  hitrh  council  of  Kirtland 
accepted  and  acknowledged  them  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants 
of  their  faith,  by  a  unanimous  vote.  Elder  Levi  Jackman, 
taking  the  lead  of  the  high  council  of  the  church  in  Missouri, 
bore  testimony  that  the  revelations  in  said  book  were  true,  and 
the  said  high  council  of  Missouri  accepted  and  acknowledged 
them  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a  unani- 
mous vote. 

President  W.  W.  Phelps  then  read  the  written  testimony  of 
the  twelve,  as  follows:  "The  testimony  of  the  witnesses 
to  the  book  of  the  Lord's  commandments,  which  he  gave  to 
his  church  through  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  who  was  appointed  by 
liie  voice  of  the  church  for  this  purpose:  We  therefore  feel 
willing  io  hear  testimony  to  all  the  world  of  mankind,  to  every 
ci-ea i  tire  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth,  and  upon  the  islands 
of  the  sea.  that  the  Lord  has  borne  record  to  our  souls,  through 
tlie  Holy  (j  host  shed  forth  upon  us,  that  these  command  men  ts 
were  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  are  profitable  for  all  men, 
and  are  verily  true.  We  give  this  testimony  unto  the  world, 
the  Lord  being  our  helper:  and  it  is  through  the  grace  of  God, 
the  Father,  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  are  permitted  to 
have  this  privilege  of  bearing  this  testimony  unto  the  world, 
in  the  which  we  rejoice  exceedingly,  praying  the  Lord  always 
that  the  children  of  men  may  be  profited  thereby."  Elder 
Leonard  Rich  bore  record  of  the  truth  of  the  book  and  the 
council  of  the  seventy  accepted  and  acknowledged  it  as  the 
doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

Bishop  N.  K.  Whitney  bore  record  of  the  truth  of  the  book, 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  155 

and  with  his  counselors  accepted  and  acknowledged   it  as  the 
doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

Acting  bishop,  John  Corrill,  bore  record  of  the  truth  of  the 
book,  and  with  his  counselors  accepted  and  acknowledged  it 
as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a  unanimous 
vote. 

Acting  president,  John  Gould,  grave  his  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  book,  and  with  the  traveling  elders,  accepted  and  acknowl- 
edged it  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a 
unanimous  vote. 

Ira  Ames,  acting  president  of  the  priests,  gave  his  testimony 
in  favor  of  the  book,  and  with  the  priests,  accepted  and 
acknowledged  it  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by 
a  unanimous  vote. 

Erastus  Babbitt,  acting  president  of  the  teachers,  gave  his 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  book,  and  they  accepted  and  ackowl- 
edged  it  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a 
unanimous  vote. 

William  Burgess,  acting  president  of  the  deacons,  bore  record 
of  the  truth  of  the  book,  and  they  accepted  and  acknowledged 
it  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a  unanimous 
vote. 

The  venerable  assistant  president,  Thomas  Gates,  then  bore 
record  of  the  truth  of  the  book,  and  with  his  five  silver-headed 
assistants,  and  the  whole  congregation,  accepted  and  acknowl- 
edged it  as  the  doctrine  and  covenants  of  their  faith,  by  a 
unanimous  vote.  The  several  authorities,  and  the  general 
assembly,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  accepted  of  the  labors  of  the 
committee. 

President  W.  W.  Phelps  then  read  an  article  on  Marriage, 
which  was  accepted  and  adopted,  and  ordered  to  be  printed  in 
said  book,  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

President  O.  Cowdery  then  read  an  article  on  "Governments 
and  laws  in  general,"  which  was  accepted  and  adopted,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed  in  said  book,  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

A  hymn  was  then  sung.  President  S.  Rigdon  returned 
thanks,  after  which  the  assembly  was  blessed  by  the  presi- 
dency, with  uplifted  hands,  and  dismissed 

OLIVER  COWDERY,    )    ppesidents. 
SIDNEY  RIGDON,        f 

THOMAS  BURDICK,    ) 
WARREN  PARRISH,  /•    Clerks. 
SYLVESTER  SMITH,    ) 

The  idea  that  the  church  accepted  the  revelations  com- 
ing through  Joseph  Smith  without  due  deliberation  and 
independent  action  finds  no  support  in  the  above. 


156  REPLY   TO  D.   H.   BAYS. 

We  find  no  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1877, 
such  as  referred  to  by  Mr.  Bays,  but  we  suppose  that  he 
refers  to  a  resolution  passed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
September,  1878,  held  at  the  same  place,  which  reads  as 
follows: 

Resolved,  That  this  body,  representing  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  recognize  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  the  revelations  of  God 
contained  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  all  other 
revelations  which  have  been  or  shall  be  revealed  through  God's 
appointed  prophet,  which  have  been  or  may  be  hereafter 
accepted  by  the  Church  as  the  standard  of  authority  on  all 
matters  of  church  government  and  doctrine,  and  the  final 
standard  of  reference  on  appeal  in  all  controversies  arising,  or 
which  may  arise  in  this  Church  of  Christ. — Saints'  Herald,  vol. 
25,  pp.  295,  290. 

This  is  evidence  clear  and  conclusive  that  it  takes  an 
action  of  the  body  to  make  a  revelation  binding,  and  that 
it  is  not  received  upon  its  presentation  by  Joseph  Smith 
until  investigation  and  inquiry  are  had. 

Mr.  Bays  says: 

That  Joseph  Smith  both  taught  and  practiced  polygamy  was 
never  doubted,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  till  it  was  questioned  by 
the  people  of  the  Reorganized  Church,  of  which  Joseph  Smith, 
son  of  the  prophet,  is  the  president. — Pages  321,  322. 

It  may  be  true  that  it  was  not  doubted,  so  far  as  Elder 
Bays  was  "aware,"  and  yet  it  may  have  been  and  was 
doubted  by  many.  The  reason  that  Elder  Bays  was  not 
aware  of  it  is  obvious,  for  prior  to  the  time  he  became 
acquainted  with  the  Reorganized  Church  his  association 
was  confined  to  those  who  advocated  polygamy,  and  to 
whose  interest  it  was  to  make  it  to  appear  that  Joseph 
Smith  taught  it. 

Elder  Bays  occupies  about  seventy-four  pages  of  his 
book  including  chapters  thirty-two  to  thirty-six  inclusive, 
to  establish  Joseph  Smith's  complicity  with  polygamy. 
We  do  not  know  whether  Joseph  Smith  taught  or 
practiced  polygamy  or  not,  nor  is  it  the  province  of  the 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  157 

church  to  declare  what  any  man  did,  or  did  not  do.  We 
do,  however,  most  emphatically  repudiate  the  doctrine, 
and  believe  it  to  be  false  in  theory  and  corrupt  in  prac- 
tice. We  take  this  position  without  reference  to  whether 
Joseph  Smith  taught  or  practiced  it.  However,  our 
interest  and  confidence  in  the  man  impel  us  to  hear  tes- 
timony regarding  his  guilt,  and  our  honor  would  compel 
us  to  admit  it  if  proven.  We  insist,  however,  that  the 
principles  of  common  law  should  apply  in  the  examination 
of  testimony,  and  therefore  contend  that  the  benefit  of 
every  reasonable  doubt  should  be  accorded  to  the  accused, 
and  that  he  should  be  considered  innocent  until  proven 
guilty. 

Mr.  Bays  should  understand  that  an  inference  is  not 
sufficient  to  establish  guilt;  nor  will  circumstantial 
evidence  condemn  unless  in  harmony  with  the  known 
facts  in  the  case.  We  cheerfully  consent  to  examine  the 
testimony  presented  against  Mr.  Smith  by  Mr.  Bays, 
and  test  it  in  harmony  with  these  well-known  rules. 
Probably  the  best  plan  of  investigation  is  to  quote  Mr. 
Bays1  summary,  and  then  inquire  upon  what  evidence  his 
conclusions  are  based.  It  is  as  follows: 

The  facts  as  we  glean  them  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses,  may  be  stated 
substantially  as  follows: 

1.  The  conduct  of  the  Mormon   leaders  at  a  time    prior   to 
August,  1835,  had  been  such  as  to  give  rise  to  the  charge  of 
"fornication  and  polygamy." 

2.  That  this  belief  on   the  part  of  those   not  connected  with 
the  church,   instead  of  diminishing,  was  only  intensified  wii-h 
the  developments  of  the  passing  years. 

3.  That   a    "secret    wife   S37stem"    was    gradually    developed 
among  the  leaders,  which  came  to  light  through  the  disclosures 
of  General  John  C.  Bennett  in  1842. 

4.  These    revelations    were    followed     by    others   of    a    more 
startling  character  early   in   1844,    in   strong  charges  of   crime 
made  by  William    Law,  of  the  "First  Presidency,"  and  Major- 
General    Wilson    Law,    of    the    IMauvoo    Legion,    through    the 
columns  of  the  Expositor. 


158  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BATS. 

5.  That  from   1812  to  1844  polygamy  had   been   preached   in 
various  States  by  the  elders  of  the  church,  thus  showing   it   to 
be  general. 

6.  Efforts  were  "made  by  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith  to  suppress 
the  facts  by  making  public  denials     through   the  press— that 
such   things   were   taught   or   practiced    by   the   leaders,    thus 
seeking  to  evade  the  charge  that  a  "secret   wife  system,"  or 
pol3*gamy,  existed  in  Nauvoo. 

7.  That  in  order  to  seemingly  support  this  view,  and  enforce 
it  upon  the  public  mind,  several  of  these  elders  were  "cut  oft','' 
or   threatened    with    expulsion,    for    teaching   "polygamy    and 
other  false  and  corrupt  doctrines." 

8.  That   at   the    very   time   these   notices   and   denials   were 
published  in  the  Times  and  Seasons,  by  the  authority  of  Joseph 
and    Hyrum    Smith,    they    were    both    not   only    teaching    the 
doctrine,    but    were     actually    practicing   polygamy  —  Joseph 
having  jive  and  Hyrum  having  two  wives,   as  now  appears  by 
the  testimony  of  the  women  themselves. 

9.  That  the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage  was  presented  to 
the  members  of  the  High  Council,  convened   for  that  purpose 
by  Joseph  Smith,  and  was   read   by   Hyrum    Smith,    in    their 
presence,  Aug.  12,  1844. 

10.  A   copy   of   this   document   was    preserved    by   Brigham 
Young,    who   had    it   publicly    read    by    Orson    Pratt    in    the 
Tabernacle  at  Salt  Lake  City,  August,  1852,  and  was  published 
in    The  Deseret  News  in  September  of  the  same   year.— Pages 
388,  389. 

We  will  take  these  conclusions  up  in  their  order  and 
examine  the  testimony  produced  by  Mr.  Ba,ys,  under  the 
respective  numbers. 

His  first  is  based  upon  the  following:  He  quotes  the 
article  on  marriage  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  in 
1835  which  reads  as  follows: 

MARRIAGE. 

According  to  the  custom  of  all  civilized  nations,  marriage  is 
regulated  by  laws  and  ceremonies:  therefore  we  believe,  that 
all  marriages  in  this  Church  of  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints 
should  be  solemnized  in  a  public  meeting,  or  feast,  prepared 
for  that  purpose:  and  that  the  solemnization  should  be  per- 
formed by  a  presiding  high  priest.,  high  priest,  bishop,  elder,  or 
priest,  not  even  prohibiting  those  persons  who  are  desirous  to 
get  married,  of  being  married  by  other  authority.  We  believe 
that  it  is  not  right  to  prohibit  members  of  this  church  from 
marrying  out  of  the  church,  if  it  be  their  determination  so  to 


REPLY    TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  159 

do,  but  such  persons  will  be  considered  weak  in  the  faith  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ. 

Marriage  should  be  celebrated  with  prayer  and  thanksgiving; 
and  at  the  solemnization,  the  persons  to  be  married,  standing 
together,  the  man  on  the  right,  and  the  woman  on  the  left, 
shall  be  addressed,  by  the  person  officiating,  as  he  shall  be 
directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  if  there  be  no  legal  objections, 
he  shall  say,  calling  each  by  their  names:  ''You  both  mutually 
agree  to  be  each  other's  companion,  husband  and  wife,  observ- 
ing the  legal  rights  belonging  to  this  condition;  that  is,  keeping 
yourselves  wholly  for  each  other,  and  from  all  others,  during 
your  lives."  And  when  they  have  answered  "Yes,"  lie  shall 
pronounce  them  "husband  and  wife"  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the  country  and 
authority  vested  in  him:  "May  God  add  his  blessings  and  keep 
you  to  fulfill  your  covenants  from  henceforth  and  forever. 
Amen." 

The  clerk  of  every  church  should  keep  a  record  of  all 
marriages  solemnized  in  his  branch. 

All  legal  contracts  of  marriage  made  before  a  person  is  bap- 
tized into  this  church,  should  be  held  sacred  and  fulfilled. 
Inasmuch  as  this  Church  of  Christ  has  been  reproached  with 
the  crime  of  fornication,  and  polygamy:  we  declare  that  we 
believe  that  one  man  should  have  one  wife;  and  one  woman 
but  one  husband,  except  in  case  of  death,  when  either  is  at 
liberty  to  marry  again.  It  is  not  ri«^ht  to  persuade  a  woman  to 
be  baptized  contrary  to  the  will  of  her  husband,  neither  is  it 
lawful  to  influence  her  to  leave  her  husband.  All  children  are 
bound  by  law  to  obey  their  parents;  and  to  influence  them  to 
embrace  any  religious  faith,  or  be  baptized,  or  leave  thei^r  par- 
ents without  their  consent,  is  unlawful  and  unjust'.  We 
believe  that  husbands,  parents,  and  masters  who  exercise  con- 
trol over  their  wives,  children,  and  servants,  and  prevent  them 
from  embracing  the  truth,  will  have  to  answer  for  that  sin.  — 
Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  111. 

He  comments  as  follows: 

At  just  what  period  this  excrescence  of  Mormonism  appeared 
and  became  the  dream  of  its  leaders,  may  never  be  known;  but 
of  one  thing  we  are  quite  sure,  and  that  is  the  Saints  were  at  an 
early  date  reproached  by  their  enemies,  as  they  deemed  the 
people  of  all  other  churches,  with  "the  crime  of  fornication 
and  polygamy."  What  gave  rise  to  this  reproach  is  very 
largely  a  matter  of  conjecture;  but  it  is  probable  that  some- 
thing either  in  their  teachings  or  their  conduct  (probably  the 
latter)  led  people,  who  viewed  things  from  the  outside,  to 
believe  that  the  lives  of  their  leaders  were  not  as  pure  as  the 
title,  "Latter  Day  Saints,"  would  lead  one  to  suppose  them  to 


160  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

be.  This  feeling  was,  no  doubt,  materially  intensified  by  the 
strong  prejudices  of  the  ppople  generally,  but  that  their 
suspicions  were  wholly  groundless,  subsequent  developments 
forbid  us  to  believe.  — Page  324. 

He  presents  nothing  further  upon  this  point.  Summed 
up  his  case  is  as  follows: 

1.  The  Saints  were  accused  of  fornication  and  polygamy 
in  1835.  2.  What  gave  rise  to  the  reproach  is  largely  a 
matter  of  conjecture,  intensified  by  strong  prejudice.  3. 
Probably  it  was  something  in  their  teachings  or  conduct. 
4.  A  further  probability  is  that  it  was  their  conduct; 
therefore,  "The  conduct  of  the  Mormon  leaders  at  a  time 
prior  to  August,  1835,  had  been  such  as  to  give  rise  to  the 
charge  of  'fornication  and  polygamy.'  " 

He  has  produced  not  one  item  of  testimony  upon  which 
to  base  his  second  conclusion  until  1812.  This  will  properly 
be  considered  under  his  number  three.  In  support  of  num- 
ber three  he  presents  the  following: 

As  early  as  October,  1842,  the  existence  of  what  was  called 
the  "secret  wife  system,"  was  made  public  at  Nauvoo,  111., 
through  the  apostasy  of  Gen.  John  C.  Bennett,  who  was  about 
that  time  expelled  from  the  church.  General  Bennett  was  a 
man  of  prominence  in  the  church,  and  a  personal  friend  of 
Joseph  Smith's  up  to  within  a  short  time  before  the  trouble 
originated  which  separated  them.  Just  what  caused  the 
difficulty  I  have  never  been  able  to  learn,  but  that  it  was  of  a 
very  grave  character  may  be  seen  from  the  history  of  those 
times.— Pages  328,  329. 

He  quotes  the  following  from  the  Times  and  Seasons,  the 
church  organ,  published  in  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  during  the 
difficulty  with  J.  C.  Bennett: 

"The  note  of  the  editor  (Joseph  Smith)  reads  thus: 

44  *\Ve  have  given  the  above  rule  of  marriage  as  the  only  one 
practiced  in  the  church,  to  show  that  Dr.  J.  C.  Bennett's  secret 
wife  system  is  a  matter  of  his  own  manufacture;  and  further, 
to  disabuse  the  public  ear,  and  to  show  that  the  said  Bennett 
and  his  misanthropic  friend,  Origen  Bachelor,  are  perpetrating 
a  foul  and  infamous  slander  upon  an  innocent  people,  and  need 
but  be  known  to  be  hated  and  despised.' 

"In  support  of  this  position  we  present  the  following  certifi- 
cates. 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  1G1 

'* 'We,  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  residents  of  the  city  of  Nau- 
voo,  persons  of  families,  do  hereby  certify  and  declare  that  we 
know  of  no  other  rule  or  system  of  marriage  than  the  one  pub- 
lished from  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  we  give 
this  certificate  to  show  that  Dr.  John  C.  Bennett's  secret  wife 
system  is  a  creature  of  his  own  make,  as  loe  know  of  no  such 
society  in  this  place,  nor  never  did. 

S.Bennett.  N.K.Whitney. 

George  Miller.  Albert  Perry. 

Alpheus  Cutler.  Elias  Higbee. 

Reynolds  Cahoon.  John  Taylor. 

Wilson  Law.  E.  Robinson. 

Wilford  Woodruff.  Aaron  Johnson.* 

"I  also  give  the  following: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  Ladies'  Relief 
Society,  and  married  females,  do  certify  and  declare,  that  we 
know  of  no  system  of  marriage  being  practiced  in  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  save  the  one  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants;  and  we  give  this  certifi- 
cate to  the  public,  to  show  that  J.  C.  Bennett's  secret  wife  system 
is  a  disclosure  of  his  own  make. 

Emma  Smith,  President. 

Eli/abeth  Ann  Whitney,  Counselor. 

Sarah  M.  Cleveland,  Counselor. 

Eliza  R.  Snow,  Secretary. 

Mary  C.  Miller.  Catherine  Petty. 

Lois  Cutler.  Sarah   Higbee. 

Thyrsa  Cahoon.  Phebe  Woodruff. 

Ann  Hunter.  Leonora  Taylor. 

Jane  Law.  Sarah  Hillman. 

Sophia  R.  Marks.  Rosannah  Marks. 

Polly  Z.  Johnson.  Angeline  Robinson. 

Abigail  Works." — (Ibid,  pages  5  and  6,  as  quoted  from  Times 
and  Seasons,  Vol.  3,  page  939,  for  Oct.  1,  1842.) -Pages  332,  333. 

Mr.  Bays  comments  upon  these  statements  as  follows: 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  General  Bennett, 
having  left  the  church,  was  the  first  to  make  a  "disclosure" 
of  the  "secret  wife  system,"  which  is  said  to  have  existed 
since  1840.  The  statement  of  Dr.  John  C.  Bennett,  and  others, 
was  made  under  oath,  and  sets  forth  the  fact  that  a  "society" 
existed  at  Nauvoo,  in  which  this  "secret  wife  system"  was 
practiced  by  the  church  leaders. 

To  counteract  the  effect  produced  upon  the  public  mind  by 
these  affidavits,  Joseph  Smith  published  the  entire  article  on 
marriage  in  the  Times  and  Seasons,  the  official  orsran  of  the 
church,  together  with  the  certificates  of  twelve  men  and  nineteen 


162  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

women.  This  array  of  witnesses  would,  under  proper  con- 
ditions, be  quite  sufficient  to  impeach  Gen.  John  C.  Bennett, 
et  al,  but  which,  under  the  circumstances,  is  of  no  le°ral  value 
whatever.  Three  serious  objections  to  the  testimony  of  these 
witnesses  may  be  urgred,  as  follows: 

1.  The  witnesses  were  not  under  oath  when  they  made  their 
statements,  and  they  were  not  sworn   to  afterwards,  and  hence 
are  incompetent  to  impeach   witnesses  who  have  made  a  state- 
ment of  alleged  facts  under  oath. 

2.  Neither  set  of  witnesses  have  shown  themselves  competent 
to  testify  upon  the  questions  in  issue. 

3.  The   witnesses   do    not  contradict  the    material    facts  set 
forth  in  the  allegation  of  the  affiants. — Pages  333,  334. 

Here  is  a  simple  statement  that  J.  C.  Bennett  and 
others  made  oath  to  something.  The  affidavits  are  not 
given.  We  are  only  told  that  it  was  a  "  'disclosure'  of 
the  'secret  wife  system,'  "  and  yet  we  are  coolly  told  that 
the  witnesses  who  gave  testimony  against  Bennett  were 
not  sworn,  had  not  proven  themselves  competent  wit- 
nesses, and  that  they  did  not  "contradict  the  material 
facts  set  forth  in  the  allegation."  Elder  Bays  should 
have  given  us  the  sworn  statements  of  Mr.  Bennett,  and 
others,  and  set  forth  what  the  material  facts  were,  before 
he  questioned  the  competency  of  the  testimony  in  rebuttal. 
We  have  before  us  a  copy  of  Bennett's  "History  of  the 
Saints;  or,  an  Expose*  of  Joe  Smith  and  Mormonism," 
published  in  1842.  We  have  looked  it  through  with  some 
care.  If  there  is  a  sworn  statement  in  it  from  him 
regarding  ua  secret  wife  system"  it  has  escaped  our 
notice.  Will  Elder  Bays  or  some  one  else  please  furnish 
us  with  the  sworn  statement  of  J.  C.  Bennett  disclosing 
"a  secret  wife  system,"  at  Nauvoo?  When  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Bennett  is  produced  it  will  be  in  order  to 
inquire  into  the  competency  of  the  testimony  in  rebuttal. 

However,  it  is  in  order  here  to  state  that  the  signers  of 
the  statements  published  in  Times  and  Seasons  were  com- 
petent witnesses  for  the  reason  that  they  stood  in  such 
relation  to  the  church  as  to  have  made  it  practicably 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  163 

impossible  for  such  a  system  to  obtain  without  their  knowl- 
edge. They  were  married  persons  themselves,  and  if  it 
was  alleged  that  a  different  ceremony  had  been  adopted 
than  the  one  given  in  the  law,  who  could  know  better 
what  kind  of  a  ceremony  was  used  than  they  who  were 
married?  Among  them  were  witnesses  from  the  Quorum 
of  Twelve,  the  Presiding  Bishop,  High  Priests,  and  others, 
the  wives  of  some  of  these  high  officials,  including  the  wife 
of  Joseph  Smith.  But  says  B.ays,  They  were  not  sworn. 
No;  but  whether  sworn  or  not,  they  either  told  the  truth 
or  told  a  lie. 

If  Mr.  Bays  insists  that  a  statement  of  a  witness  is  not 
to  be  taken  unless  he  is  under  oath  it  will  be  well  to 
remember  that  Elder  Bays  himself  was  not  sworn  when  he 
made  his  many  statements  concerning  his  personal  experi- 
ence and  observations  while  in  the  church.  If  it  is  his 
idea  that  a  man  cannot  tell  the  truth  except  when  sworn, 
it  may  account  for  some  of  his  own  peculiar  statements  as 
recorded  in  "Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism;"  and 
what  makes  Bays  look  all  the  more  ridiculous  is  that  he  on 
page  369  quotes  what  one  of  these  same  signers,  Ebenezer 
Robinson,  said  to  him  in  1865  when  he  was  not  sworn,  nor 
was  Bays  sworn  when  he  related  it  to  us.  If  Mr.  Robin- 
son could  not  tell  the  truth  without  being  sworn  in  1812, 
then  we  think  he  could  not  do  so  in  1865. 

Before  leaving  this  point,  a  word  about  Mr.  John  0. 
Bennett.  To  show  his  hypocrisy,  perfidy,  and  utter 
unreliability,  we  have  only  to  quote  his  own  words  as 
found  in  the  book  referred  to: 

I  find  that  it  is  almost  universally  the  opinion  of  those  who 
have  heard  of  me  in  the  Eastern  part  of  the  United  States,  that 
I  united  myself  to  the  Mormons  from  a  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  their  doctrines,  and  that  1  was,  at  least  for  some  time,  a  con- 
vert to  their  pretended  religion.  This,  however,  is  a  very 
gross  error.  I  never  believed  in  them  or  their  doctrines.  This  is, 
and  indeed  was,  from  the  first,  well  known  to  my  friends  and 
acquaintances  in  the  western  country,  who  were  well  aware  of 


164  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

my  reasons  for  connecting  myself  with  the  Prophet;  which 
reasons  I  will  now  proceed  to  state.  .  .  . 

It  at  length  occurred  to  me  that  the  surest  and  speediest  way 
to  overthrow  the  Impostor,  and  expose  his  iniquity  to  the 
world,  would  be  to  profess  myself  a  convert  to  his  doctrines, 
and  join  him  at  the  seat  of  his  dominion.  I  felt  confident  that 
from  my  standing  in  society,  and  the  offices  I  held  under  the 
state  of  Illinois,  I  should  be  received  by  the  Mormons  with 
open  arms;  and  that  the  course  I  was  resolved  to  pursue  would 
enable  me  to  get  behind  the  curtain,  and  behold,  at  my  leisure, 
the  secret  wires  of  the  fabric,  and  likewise  those  who  moved 
them.  .  .  . 

The  fact  that  in  joining  the" Mormons  I  was  obliged  to  make 
a  pretence  of  belief  in  their  religion  does  not  alter  the  case. 
That  pretence  was  unavoidable  in  the  part  I  was  acting,  and  it 
should  not  be  condemned  like  hypocrisy  towards  a  Christian 
church.  For  so  absurd  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Mormons  that 
I  regard  them  with  no  more  reverence  than  I  would  the 
worship  of  Manitou  or  the  Great  Spirit  of  the  Indians,  and  feel 
no  more  compunction  at  joining  in  the  former  than  in  the 
latter,  to  serve  the  same  useful  purpose. — An  Expose  of  Joe 
Smith  and  Mormonism,  by  John  C.  Bennett,  1842,  pp.  5,  6,  7,  9. 

A  man  who  will  confess  to  such  hypocrisy  and  double 
dealing  is  worthy  only  to  appear  as  a  conspicuous  figure 
in  "Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism,"  and  even  the 
author  of  that  work  was  ashamed  to  quote  Bennett.  To 
cap  the  climax  after  all  this  confessed  pretense,  acknowl- 
edged hypocrisy,  and  renunciation,  Bennett  again  appears 
in  1846  and  1347  with  James  J.  Strang,  acknowledging 
that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  prophet  of  God,  and  claiming 
that  Joseph  Smith  had  intrusted  to  him  certain  documents 
to  be  held  in  trust  until  after  Joseph's  death.  He  was 
expelled  from  the  Strangite  organization,  October  8,  1847. 
(Church  History,  vol.  3,  page  44  )  Regarding  the  "oth- 
ers" that  Bays  refers  to  in  connectioa  with  Bennett, 
we  suppose  he  has  reference  to  those  whose  statements 
and  affidavits  are  published  in  Bennett's  Expose.  A 
careful  examination  of  these  statements  will  disclose  an 
indiscriminate  mass  of  contradictory  assertions  regarding 
attempted  criminality,  but  no  claim  is  made  in  any  of 
them  that  the  authors  knew  of  any  "secret  wife  system." 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  165 

In  support  of  his  fourth  conclusion  he  introduces  not  one 
word  of  testimony.  He  simply  asserts  that  William  and 
Wilson  Law,  the  Higbees,  Fosters,  and  others  who  had 
been  expelled  from  the  church,  sought  through  the  columns 
of  a  paper  called  the  Nauvoo  Expositor  to  expose  Joseph 
Smith  and  the  church;  but  not  one  sentence  from  the 
Expositor  or  elsewhere  is  produced  to  show  what  the 
allegations  were.  The  Nauvoo  Expositor  was  published 
June  7,  1844.  There  was  but  one  issue,  as  the  plant  was 
demolished  as  a  nuisance  by  order  of  the  city  council.  It 
contained  many  vile  and  slanderous  statements  against 
many  of  the  leading  gentlemen  and  ladies  of  the  city; 
which  aggravated  the  city  council  to  adopt  what  seems  to 
us  to  be  extreme  measures.  We  do  not  indorse  the  action, 
believing  it  to  have  been  rash,  impolitic,  and  unjust,  but 
before  we  accept  the  testimonies  of  the  publishers  of  the 
Expositor  we  should  consider  that  the  leading  men  among 
them  had  affiliated  with  the  church,  some  of  them  for  many 
years,  without  a  protest,  until  they  had  been  tried  and 
expelled  for  crime,  which  was  done  in  April  prior  to  the 
publication  of  the  Expositor. 

If  criminality  had  existed  before,  as  they  alleged,  why 
did  they  keep  quiet  until  they  were  expelled  from  the 
•  church?  If  their  testimony  is  true,  they  were  equally 
guilty  with  the  rest. 

However,  if  Elder  Bays  introduces  these  witnesses,  it  is 
in  harmony  with  rules  of  law  that  he  should  be  bound 
by  their  testimony,  and  we  insist  that  he  accept  it  all,  or 
consent  to  strike  it  from  the  record.  In  the  preamble 
adopted  by  them  preceding  a  series  of  resolutions,  we 
find  the  following: 

As  for  our  acquaintance  with  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints,  we  know,  no  man  or  set  of  men  can  be  more 
thoroughly  acquainted  witli  its  rise,  its  organization,  and  its 
history,  than  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  we  are.  We  all 
verily  believe,  and  many  of  us  know  of  a  surety,  that  the 


166  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

religion  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  as  originally  taught  by  Joseph 
Smith,  which  is  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
Book  of  Covenants,  and  Book  of  Mormon,  is  verily  true;  and 
that  the  pure  principles  set  forth  in  those  books,  are  the 
immutable  and  eternal  principles  of  Heaven,  and  speaks  a 
language  which,  when  spoken  in  truth  and  virtue,  sinks  deep 
into  the  heart  of  every  honest  man.  Its  precepts  are  invigorat- 
ing, and  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  tend  to  dignify  and  ennoble 
man's  conceptions  of  God  and  his  attributes.  It  speaks  a  lan- 
guage which  is  heard  amidst  the  roar  of  Artillery,  as  well  as  in 
the  silence  of  midnight:  it  speaks  a  language  understood  by  the 
incarcerated  spirit,  as  well  as  he  who  is  unfettered  and  free; 
yet  to  those  who  will  not  see,  it  is  dark,  mysterious,  and  secret 
as  the  grave.—  Expositor,  page  1. 

If  Elder  Bays  will  accept  the  testimony  of  his  own  wit- 
nesses, this  settles  the  main  point  at  issue.  The  personal 
character  of  Joseph  Smith,  or  of  any  other  man,  is  of 
minor  consideration  compared  with  the  character  of  the 
principles  promulged.  If  Elder  Bays  will  not  accept  this 
testimony  upon  the  main  issue,  we  object  to  the  witnesses 
being  heard  upon  minor  points  at  issue.  What  say  you? 
Shall  we  excuse  the  witnesses  and  strike  their  testimony 
from  the  record,  or  shall  we  let  it  appear  in  its  entirety? 

His  fifth  conclusion  is  overstated.  He  has  not  proved 
"that  from  1842  to  1841  polygamy  had  been  preached  in 
various  States  by  the  elders  of  the  church."  He  has  only 
proved  that  it  was  preached  by  one  elder  in  one  county  in  . 
Michigan,  and  by  some  elders  in  one  neighborhood  in 
Hancock  county,  Illinois,  and  each  of  these  was  in  1844. 
Does  this  show  it  to  have  been  general?  Eich  of  these 
cases  was  promptly  dealt  with,  as  Mr.  Bays  well  knows. 
The  following  quotations  will  show  how  these  cases  were 
disposed  of: 

NOTICE. 

As  we  have  lately  been  credibly  informed,  that  an  Elder  of 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  Latter-day  Saints,  by  the  name 
of  Hiram  Brown,  has  been  preaching  Polygamy,  and  other 
false  and  corrupt  doctrines,  in  the  county  of  Lapeer,  state  of 
Michigan. 

This  is  to  notify  him  and  the  Church  in  general,  that  he  has 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  16T 

been  cut  off  from  the  church,  for  his  iniquity;  and  he  it 
further  notified  to  appear  at  the  Special  Conference,  on  the 
6th  of  April  next,  to  make  answer  to  these  charges. 

JOSEPH  SMITH, 
HYRUM  SMITH, 
Presidents  of  said  Church. 

—  Times  and  Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  423. 

NAUVOO,  March  15,  1844. 

To  the  brethren  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latterday 
Saints,  living-on  China  Creek,  in  Hancock  County,  Greeting:  — 
Whereas  brother  Richard  Hewitt  has  called  on  me  to-day,  to 
know  my  views  concerning  some  doctrines  that  are  preached 
in  your  place,  and  states  to  me  that  some  of  your  elders  say, 
that  a  man  having  a  certain  priesthood,  may  have  as  many  wives 
as  he  pleases,  and  that  doctrine  is  taught  here:  I  say  unto  you 
that  that  man  teaches  false  doctrine,  for  there  is  no  such 
doctrine  taught  here;  neither  is  there  any  such  thing  practiced 
here.  And  any  man  that  is  found  teaching  privately  or  pub- 
licly any  such  doctrine,  is  culpable,  and  will  stand  a,  chance 
to  be  brought  before  the  High  Council,  and  lose  his  license 
and  membership  also:  therefore  he  had  better  beware  what  he 
is  about.  HYRUM  SMITH. 

—  Times  and  Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  474. 

His  sixth  and  seventh  conclusions  contain  nothing  but 
assertion,  hence  no  rebuttal  is  called  for.  We  will  only 
invite  attention  here  to  the  fact  that  Elder  Bays  has 
entered  a  realm  in  these  two  conclusions  of  which  he  can 
know  nothing.  We  may  determine  from  evidence  what 
men  have  done,  but  we  cannot  determine  by  evidence  why 
they  did  it.  This  is  simply  a  field  for  conjecture.  When 
Elder  Bays  declares  that  he  has  proved  why  these  men  did 
as  they  did,  it  is  too  absurd  to  be  even  childish — it  is 
foolish. 

In  support  of  his  eighth  conclusion  he  has  presented 
some  sworn  statements  which  we  will  briefly  examine. 
Regarding  the  alleged  five  wives  of  Joseph  Smith,  Elder 
Bays  presents  the  following: 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  EMILY  D.  P.  YOUNG. 

"TERRITORY  OF  UTAH,         (_ 
COUNTY  OF  SALT  LAKE.    \  S8' 

"Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  first  day  of  May,  A.  D.  18fi9, 
personally  appeared  before  me,  Elias  Smith,  Judge  of  Probate 


168  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

for  said  county,  Emily  Dow  Patridsre  Young:,  \vho  was  by  me 
sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath,  saith  that  on  the 
eleventh  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1843,  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  county 
of  Hancock,  State  of  Illinois,  she  was  married  or  sealed  to 
Joseph  Smith,  President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter Day  Saints,  by  James  Adams,  a  Hisrh  Priest,  in  said  church, 
according:  to  the  law  of  the  same  regulating  marria<re,  in  the 
presence  of  Emma  (Hale)  Smith  and  Eliza  Maria  Partridge 
(Lyman.)  EMILY  D.  P.  YOUNG." 

"Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Emily  D.  P.  Young, 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

"E.  SMITH,  Probate  Judge." 

—Page  377. 

CERTIFICATE   OF  LOYINA  WALKER. 

"I,  Lovina  Walker,  hereby  certify  that  while  I  was  living 
with  Aunt  Emma  Smith,  in  Fulton  City,  Fulton  County, 
Illinois,  in  the  year  1849.  she  told  me  that  she,  Emma  Smith, 
was  present,  and  witnessed  the  marriage  or  sealing  of  Eliza 
Partridsre,  Emily  Partridge,  Maria  Lawrence,  and  Sarah 
Lawrence  to  her  husband  Joseph  Smith,  and  that,  she  gave  her 
consent  thereto.  LOVINA  WALKER." 

"We  hereby  witness  that  Lovina  Walker  made  and  sisrned 
the  above  statement  on  the  10th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  I860,  of  ber 
own  free  will  and  accord. 

"HYRUM  WALKER. 
"SARAH  E.  SMITH. 
"Jos.  F.  SMITH." 
—Page  370. 

According  to  Bays'  own  rule  we  would  have  to  throw 
out  the  testimony  of  Lovina  Walker,  because  she  was  not 
sworn.  We  are  willing  to  consider  her  statement,  and 
accept  it  for  what  it  is  worth,  but  we  do  think  it  a  little 
inconsistent  for  Bays  to  object  to  statements  not  sworn 
to,  and  then  introduce  the  same  character  of  statements 
himself.  Her  testimony,  however,  is  only  hearsay  testi- 
mony, and  according  to  rules  of  evidence  the  testimony  of 
Emma  Smith  is  better  than  what  some  one  else  says  she 
said. 

The  testimony  of  Emily  D.  P.  Young  is  written  in  the 
third  person  and  shows  on  the  face  of  it  that  it  was 
framed  by  some  other  person  for  her,  and  she  in  some 
way  induced  to  subscribe  to  it. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  169 


On  March  16,  1892,  Mrs.  Emily  D.  P.  Young  was 
examined  at  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  in  the  famous  Temple 
Lot  suit.  Under  cross-examination  she  made  the  following 
record: 

I  was  married  to  Brigham  Young  in  November  I  think,  1844. 
I  was  not  married  in  the  Temple  because  the  Temple  was  not 
built  at  that  time;  it  was  in  process  of  erection,  but  it  was  not 
finished,  so  that  we  could  be  married  in  it.  At  the  time  I 
married  Brigham  Young1,  in  November,  1844,  I  was  at  the  same 
time  sealed  to  Joseph  Smith,  sealed  to  him  for  eternity;  I  was 
sealed  to  Brigham  Young  for  time,  and  to  Joseph  Smith  for 
eternity.  The  manner  that  I  was  married  to  Brio-ham  Young 
is  what  is  known  as  marriage  by  proxy;  that  is  what  I  con- 
sidered it  meant;  that  is,  I  was  sealed  to  Brigham  Young  that 
day,  during  my  natural  life,  and  in  eternity  I  was  to  be  the 
wife  of  Joseph  Smith.  I  was  not  married  to  Joseph  Smith 
under  the  revelation  on  sealing,  but  I  was  married  to  him 
under  the  revelation  on  plural  marriage.  I  was  married 
March,  18-18;  on  the  llth  day  of  March,  I  think  it  was.  I  know 
I  was  married  to  him  Under  the  revelation  of  plural  marriage. 
I  was  married  to  him  on  the  llth  day  of  May,  1848. 

Q.— Now,  I  would  like  for  you  to  explain  how  you  were 
married  to  Joseph  Smith  under  the  plural  marriage  revelation 
when  the  church  you  belong  to  claims  that  revelation  was  not 
given  until  July,  1848;  just  tell  how  you  could  be  married 
under  a  revelation  in  March  that  was  not  given  until  July. 

A.  — Well,  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that. — Plaintiff's 
Abstract,  p.  304. 

It  was  an  easy  matter  for  this  witness  to  sign  a  state- 
ment fixed  up  for  her  by  some  one  else,  which  partook  of 
the  nature  of  a  defense  of  the  system  she  was  at  the  time 
practicing,  but  when  on  the  witness  stand  under  cross- 
examination,  and  depending  upon  her  own  resources  she 
breaks  completely  down,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  above. 

As  both  Mrs.  "Walker  and  Mrs.  Young  speak  of  Mrs. 
Emma  Smith  being  present  and  witnessing  the  sealing  of 
other  women  to  her  husband,  it  will  be  proper  to  hear 
Mrs.  Smith  on  that  point.  In  an  interview  with  her  son 
Joseph,  in  February,  1879,  she  states  as  follows: 

Q.     Did  he  not  have  other  wives  than  yourself? 
A.     He -had  no  other  wife  but  me;  nor  did  he  to  my  knowl- 
edge ever  have. 


170  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Q.  Did  he  not  hold  marital  relation  with  women  other  than 
yourself! 

A.  He  did  not  have  improj  er  relations  with  any  woman 
that  ever  came  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Was  there  nothing  about  spiritual  wives  that  you 
recollect? 

A.  At  one  time  my  husband  came  to  me  and  asked  me  if  I 
had  heard  certain  rumors  about  spiritual  marriages,  or  any- 
thing of  the  kind;  and  assured  me  that  if  I  had,  that  ihey  were 
without  foundation;  that  there  was  no  such  doctrine,  and 
never  should  be  with  his  knowledge,  or  consent.  I  know  that 
be  had  no  other  wife  or  wives  than  myself,  in  any  sense,  either 
spiritual  or  otherwise. — Saints'  Htrald,  vol.  20,  p.  289. 

Here  Mrs.  Smith  directly  contradicts  the  testimony  of 
these  women,  and  hence  their  testimony  is  not  sustained 
by  the  very  party  to  whcm  they  refer. 

Mr.  Bays  certifies  to  the  good  character  of  Emma  Smith 
as  follows: 

!Mrs.  Smith  was  a  lady  of  more  than  ordinary  mental  endow- 
ments, and  possessed  a  reputation  for  honor  and  integrity  that 
won  the  respect  and  esteem  of  those  who  knew  her  best.  It  is 
but  fair  to  presume,  therefore,  that  she  stated  the  facts  as  she 
understood  and  recollected  them,  but  having  attained  her 
seventy-fifih  year,  and  her  health  having  been  poor  for  several 
years  before  her  death,  it  is  but  natural  to  conclude  that  her 
memory  would  be  somewhat  defective.— Page  302. 

It  is  conceded,  then,  that  Emma  Smith's  statements  are 
true  to  the  best  of  her  recollection.  We  ask  the  reader  to 
consider  if  it  is  "natural  to  conclude"  that  a  w(  man  would 
ever  forget  while  reason  remained  that  she  was  present 
and  witnessed  four  other  women  married  to  her  husband? 
It  is  impossible! 

However,  we  here  submit  the  following  sworn  statement 
to  show  that  when  she  was  much  younger  her  memory  was 
the  same  as  in  her  later  life: 

TERRITORY  OF  OKLAHOMA,  \  sg 
COUNTY  OF  NOBLE,  f 

Before  me  a  Notary  Public  in  and  for  the  county  and  terri- 
tory afore  said,  personally  appeared  R.  W.  Southard,  who  first 
being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  deposes  and  sa}Ts  that  dur- 
ing the  years  of  1850  and  1857  he  was  personally  acquainted 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  171 

with  Mrs.  Emma  Smith,  the  widow  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  that 
during -the  year  of  1857  he  had  several  conversations  with  her, 
and  that  upon  different  occasions  she  averred  to  him  that  her 
husband,  Joseph  Smith,  was  not  a  polygamist,  that  he  never 
had  any  wife  but  herself,  that  he  never  advocated  the  doctrine 
of  .plurality  of  marriages,  and  that  he  was  a  man  of  very 
exemplary  habits. 

That  at  the  time  of  such  conversations,  he  considered  her 
free  from  any  bias  or  prejudice  in  the  matter  and  that  she  was 
in  possession  of  her  full  mental  faculties. 

R.  W.  SOUTHARD,  M.  D. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  29th  day  of  January, 
1901.  W.  E.  MERRY,  Notary  Public. 

Concerning  the  allegations  that  Hyrum  Smith  had  two 
wives,  Elder  Bays  submits  the  following: 

TESTIMONY   OF  MERCY  B.    THOMPSON. 

"SALT  LAKE  CITY,  January  31,  1886. 
"A.  M.  MUSSER, 

"Dear  Brother: — Having  noticed  in  the  Deseret  News  an 
inquiry  for  testimony  concerning  the  revelation  on  plural  mar- 
riage, and  having  read  the  testimony  of  Brother  Grover,  it 
came  to  my  mind  that  perhaps  it  would  be  rig'ht  for  me  to  add 
my  testimony  to  his  on  the  subject  of  Brother  Hyrum  reading 
it  in  the  Hiirh  Council.  I  well  remember  the  circumstance.  I 
remember  he  told  me  he  had  read  it  to  the  brethren  in  his 
office.  He  put  it  into  my  hands  and  left  it  with  me  for  several 
days.  I  had  been  sealed  to  him  by  Brother  Joseph  a  few  weeks 
previously,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  almost  every  mem- 
ber of  the  High  Council,  and  know  Brother  Grover's  testimony 
to  be  correct.  Now  if  this  testimony  would  be  of  any  use  to 
such  as  are  weak  in  the  faith  or  tempted  to  doubt.  I  should  be 
very  thankful.  Please  make  use  of  this  in  any  way  you 
think  best,  as  well  as  the  copy  of  the  letter  addressed  to  Joseph 
Smith  at  Lamoni.  Your  Sister  in  the  Gospel, 

"MERCY  R.  THOMPSON." 

TESTIMONY   AS   TO   HER  MARRIAGE   TO   HYRUM   SMITH. 

"SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Sept.  5,  1886. 
"MR.  JOSEPH  SMITH,  Lamoni,  111.  [Iowa], 

"Dear  Sir:- After  having  asked  my  Father  in  heaven  to  help 
me,  I  sit  down  to  write  a  few  lines  as  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

"After  reading  the  correspondence  between  you  and  L.  O. 
Littlefield,  I  concluded  it  was  the  duty  of  some  one  to  bear  a 
testimony  which  could  not  be  disputed.  Finding  from  your 
letters  to  Littlefield  that  no  one  of  your  father's  friends  had 


172  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

performed  this  duty  while  you  were  here,  now  I  will  begin  at 
once  and  tell  you  my  experience. 

"My  beloved  husband,  R.  H.  Thompson,  }*our  father's  private 
secretary  to  the  end  of  his  mortal  life,  died  August  27,  1841.  (I 
presume  3rou  will  remember  him.)  Nearly  two  years  after  Jiis 
death  your  father  told  me  that  my  husband  had.  appeared  to  him 
several  times,  telling  him  that  he  did  not  wish  me  to  request  your 
uncle  Hyrum  to  have  me  sealed  to  Mm  for  time.  Hy  ru  m  com  m  u n  i- 
cated  this  to  his  wife  (my  sister),  who  by  request  opened  the 
subject  to  me,  when  every  thing  within  me  rose  in  opposition 
to  such  a  step;  but  when  3rour  father  called  and  explained  the 
subject  to  me  I  dared  not  refuse  to  obey  the  counsel,  lest  per- 
adventure  1  should  be  found  fighting  against  God,  and  especially 
when  he  told  me  the  last  time  my  husband  appeared  to  him  he 
came  with  such  power  that  it  made  him  tremble. 

"He  then  inquired  of  the  Lord  what  he  should  do:  the 
answer  was.  'Go  and  do  as  my.  servant  hath  required.*  He 
then  took  all  opportunity  to  communicate  this  to  your  uncle 
Hyrum,  who  told  me  that  the  Holy  Spirit  rested  upon  him 
from  the  crown  of  his  head  to  the  soles  of  his  feet.  The  time 
was  appointed,  with  the  consent  of  all  parties,  and  your  father 
sealed  me  to  your  uncle  Hyrum  for  time,  in  my  sister's  room, 
with  a  covenant  to  deliver  me  up  in  the  morning  of  the  resur- 
rection to  Robert  Blaskell  Thompson  with  whatever  offspring" 
should  be  the  result  of  the  union,  at  the  same  time  counseling 
your  uncle  to  build  a  room  for  me  and  move  me  over  as  soon 
as  convenient,  which  he  did,  and  I  remained  there  as  a  wife 
the  same  as  my  sister  to  the  day  of  his  death.  All  this  I  am 
ready  to  testify  to  in  the  presence  of  God,  angels  and  men. 

"JSow  I  assure  you  I  have  not  been  prompted  or  dictated  by 
any  mortal  being  in  writing  to  you;  neither  does  a  living  soul 
know  it  but  my  invalid  daughter. 

"God  bless  you,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of  3Tour  true  friend. 

"MERCY  R.  THOMPSON. 

•'P.  S. — If  you  feel  disposed  to  ask  me  an}7  questions,  I  will 
be  pleased  to  answer  concerning  blessings  which  I  received 
under  the  hands  of  your  late  mother,  by  the  direction  of  your 
father.— M.  R.  T.  in  Deseret  Neics."  (Littlefield's  Celestial 
Marriage,  pages  1  and  2.) -Pages  382-384. 

Joseph  Smith,  of  Lamoni,  makes  this  statement  regard- 
ing the  letter  above  quoted: 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  March  13,  1900. 

To  the  reader  of  this  book. 

I  received  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Thompson  in  1883,  but  received 
Done  in  1886. 

In  the  letter  I  received  from  her  there  is  no  such  statement 
as  the  one  made  in  the  four  lines  in  second  paragraph,  page 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  173 

383,  beginning  with  the  word  "nearly,"  ending  with  the  word 
"time."  JOSEPH  SMITH. 

We  have  emphasized  the  interpolated  words. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  witness  says  that  the  reve- 
lation authorizing  polygamy  was  placed  in  her  hands  and 
left  there  "for  several  days."  She  then  had  a  good  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  it.  Subsequently  to  her  writing  to 
Joseph  Smith,  her  readiness  to  testify  "in  the  presence  of 
God,  angels  and  men"  was  partly  gratified,  and  she  was 
permitted  to  testify  in  the  presence  of  men  in  the  Temple 
Lot  suit,  March  16,  1892,  when  she  said: 

I  saw  that  revelation  on  polygamy,  and  had  it  in  my  hands, 
saw  what  kind  of  tfaper  it  was  written  on.  It  was  written  on 
foolscap,  paper.  I  do  not  know  exactly  how  many  pages 
there  were  of  it,  think  there  was  not  more  than  one  whole 
sheet,  and  I  am  as  certain  of  that  as  I  am  of  anything  I  have 
testified  to,  that  there  was  not  more  than  one  whole  sheet  of 
foolscap,  that  would  be  four  pa<res.  If  there  had  been  more 
than  one  full  sheet,  I  should  have  known  it.  It  did  not  require 
any  pins  in  the  paper  to  pin  it  together,  because  when  it  was 
opened  up  it  was  all  on  one  sheet.  — Plaintiff's  Abstract,  p.  347. 

If  this  witness  gives  a  correct  description  of  the  revela- 
tion, then  it  is  not  the  one  published  by  Elder  Bays  in  his 
thirty-fourth  chapter.  That  covers  over  thirteen  pages  of 
printed  matter.  We  wish  the  reader  to  remember  this 
point,  for  we  will  have  occasion  to  compare  this  testimony 
with  that  of  another  of  Bays'  witnesses  on  another  point. 

It  will  be  seen  further  that  this  witness  says  that 
Hyrum  Smith  told  her  that  he  had  re:d  the  revelation 
"to  the  brethren  in  his  office,"  and  that  this  was  a  "few 
weeks'  subsequent  to  her  being  sealed  to  him.  This 
reading  to  the  High  Council,  according  to  testimony 
introduced  by  Bays,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  took  place 
on  or  about  August  12,  1843.  In  Mrs.  Thompson's 
testimony  given  in  the  Temple  Lot  case  she  says: 

This  was  in  August,  18-13,  that  I  was  sealed  to  him,  and  it 
was  almost  a  year  after  that  time  before  he  was  martyred, — • 
that  was  in  June,  1844.— Plaintiff's  Abstract,  p.  340. 


174  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

Now  there  are  not  a  "few  weeks "  in  August  prior  to  the 
twelfth  day. 

This  witness,  according  to  her  testimony,  lost  her  first 
husband  in  August,  1841.  Two  years  later  she  was  sealed 
to  Hyrum  Smith  and  lived  with  him  until  his  death,  June 
27,  1844.  In  the  same  year,  or  the  year  following,  she 
married  John  Taylor  and  lived  with  him  but  a  short  time. 
In  September,  1847,  she  accepted  a  divorce  from  John 
Taylor  granted  by  Brigham  Young,  at  a  time  when  Young 
was  not  a  judge  of  any  court,  and  hence  had  no  legal  right 
to  grant  divorces;  and  before  the  close  of  the  year  1847, 
married  James  Lawson..  (See  her  testimony  in  case  before 
cited.)  Now  Bays  brings  her  forward  as  a  witness,  and 
presents  in  evidence  a  statement  written  by  her  pro- 
fessedly "as  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Bays  ought 
to  have  noticed,  too,  that  she  was  not  sworn.  Upon  the 
testimony  of  this  woman,  who  makes  a  statement 
calculated  in  its  nature  to  bolster  up  an  institution  of 
impurity  in  which  she  was  an  active  participant,  he 
wishes  us  to  believe  that  Hyrum  Smith  had  two  wives 
at  the  same  time.  We  think  this  testimony  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  convict. 

His  ninth  conclusion  is  based  upon  the  following  state- 
ments: 

"STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY,          j 
COUNTY  OF  BURLINGTON,      f     ' 

"Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  fourteenth  day  of  November, 
A.  D.  18S3,  personally  appeared  before  me,  ,1.  W.  Roberts,  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  county  and  State  aforesaid,  Leonard 
Soby,  who  was  by  me  sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  oath 
saith,  that  on  or  about  the  ]2th  day  of  August,  1813,  in  the  city 
of  Nauvoo,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  in  the  county  of  Hancock, 
before  the  High  Council  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter Day  Saints,  of  which  body  and  council  aforesaid  he  was  a 
member,  personally  appeared  one  Hyrum  Smith,  of  the  first 
presidency  of  said  church,  and  brother  to  Joseph  Smith,  the 
president  and  prophet  of  the  same,  and  presented  to  said  coun- 
cil the  Revelation  on  Polygamy,  enjoining  its  observance  and 
declaring  it  came  from  God;  unto  which  a  large  majority  of 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  175 

the  council  agreed  and  assented,  believing  it  to  be  of  a  celestial 
order,  though  no  vote  was  taken  upon  it,  for  the  reason  that  the 
voice  of  the  prophet,  in  such  matters,  was  understood  by  us  to 
be  the  voice  of  God  to  the  church,  and  that  said  revelation  was 
presented  to  said  council,  us  before  stated,  as  coming  from 
Joseph  Smith,  the  prophet  of  the  Lord,  and  was  received  by  us 
as  other  revelations  had  been.  The  said  Leonard  Soby  further 
saith  that  Elder  Austin  A.  Cowles,  a  member  of  the  High  Coun- 
cil aforesaid,  did,  subsequently  to  the  12th  day  of  August,  1843, 
openly  declare  against  the  said  revelation  on  polygamy,  and 
the  doctrines  therein  contained.  LEONARD  SOBY." 

"Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Leonard  Soby,  the  day 
and  year  first  above  written.  JOSHUA  W.  ROBERTS, 

"Justice  of  the  Peace." 
—Pages  378,  379. 

"TERRITORY  OF  UTAH,         ) 
COUNTY  OF  SALT  LAKE,     f 

"Be  it  remembered  on  this  fifteenth  day  of  June,  A.  D.,  18G9, 
personally  appeared  before  me,  James  Jack,  a  Notary  Public  in 
and  for  said  county,  David  Fullmer,  who  was  by  me  sworn  in  due 
form  of  law,  and  upon  his  oath  saith,  that  on  or  about  the  twel  fth 
day  of  August,  A.  D  ,  1843,  while  in  meeting  with  the  High 
Council,  (he  being  a  member  thereof),  in  Hyrum  Smith's  brick 
office,  in  the  City  of  Nauvoo,  County  of  Hancock,  State  of 
Illinois,  Dunbar  Wilson  made  inquiry  in  relation  to  the  subject 
of  a  plurality  of  wives,  as  there  were  rumors  about  respecting 
it,  and  he  was  satisfied  there  was  something  in  those  remarks, 
and  he  wanted  to  know  what  it  was,  upon  which  Hyrum  Smith 
stepped  across  the  road  to  his  residence,  and  soon  returned, 
bringing  with  him  a  copy  of  the  revelation  on  celestial  mar- 
riage, given  to  Joseph  Smith,  July  12,  A.  D.,  1843,  and  read  the 
same  to  the  High  Council,  and  bore  testimony  of  its  truth.  The 
said  David  Fullmer  further  said  that  to  the  best  of  his  memory 
and  belief,  the  following  named  persons  were  present:  Wm. 
Marks,  Austin  A.  Cowles,  Samuel  Bent,  George  W.  Harris,  Dun- 
bar  Wilson,  Wm.  Huntington,  Levi  Jackman,  Aaron  Johnson, 
Thomas  Grover.  David  Fullmer,  Phineas  Richards,  James  Allred. 
and  Leonard  Soby.  And  the  said  David  Fullmer  further  saith 
that  Wm.  Marks,  Austin  A.  Cowles  arid  Leonard  Soby  were  the 
only  persons  present  who  did  not  receive  the  testimony  of 
Hyrum  Smith,  and  that  all  the  others  did  receive  it  from  the 
teaching  and  testimony  of  the  said  Hyrum  Smith.  And 
further,  that  the  copy  of  said  Revelation  on  Celestial  Marriage, 
published  in  the  Deseret  News  extra  of  September  fourteenth.  A. 
D.,  1852,  is  a  true  copy  of  the  same.  DAVID  FULLMER." 

"Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  David  Fullmer  the  day 
and  year  first  above  written.  JAMES  JACK,  Notary  Public." 


176  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

EXTRACT  FROM  THOMAS  GROVER*S  LETTER. 

"The  High  Council,  of  Nauvoo,  was  called  together  by  the 
Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  to  know  whether  they  would  accept 
the  revelation  on  celestial  marriasre  or  not. 

"The  presidency  of  the  Stake,  Wm.  Marks,  Father  Coles  and 
the  late  Apostle  Charles  C.  Rich,  were  there  present.  The 
following  are  the  names  of  the  High  Council  that  were 
present,  in  their  order,  viz.:  Samuel  Bent,  William  Hunting- 
ton,  Alpheus  Cutler,  Thomas  Grover,  Lewis  D.  Wilson,  David 
Fullmer,  Aaron  Johnson,  Newel  Knight,  Leonard  Soby,  Isaac 
Allred,  Henry  G.  Sherwood  and,  I  think,  Samuel  Smith. 

"Brother  Hyrum  Smith  was  called  upon  to  read  the  revela- 
tion. He  did  so,  and  after  reading  it  said:  'Now,  you  that 
believe  this  revelation  and  go  forth  and  obey  the  same  shall 
be  saved,  and  you  that  reject  it  shall  be  damned.' 

"We  saw  this  prediction  verified  in  less  than  one  week.  Of 
the  Presidency  of  the  Stake,  William  Marks  and  Father  Coles 
rejected  the  revelation;  of  the  Council  that  were  present, 
Leonard  Soby  rejected  it.  From  that  time  forward  there  was 
a  very  strong  division  in  the  High  Council.  These  three  men 
greatly  diminished  in  spirit  day  after  day,  so  that  there  was  a 
great  difference  in  the  line"  of  their  conduct,  which  was  per- 
ceivable to  every  member  that  kept  the  faith. 

"From  that  time  forward  we  often  received  instructions  from 
the  Prophet  as  to  what  was  the  will  of  the  Lord  and  how  to 
proceed."— Pages  374-37(>. 

These  three  statements  agree  that  Hyrum  Smith  did 
read  the  revelation  on  polygamy  to  the  High  Council. 
One  locates  the  place  as  being  in  Hyrum  Smith's  office, 
the  other  two  do  not  say  where.  Two  practically  agree 
as  to  date;  the  other  is  silent  on  date.  One  has  it  that 
the  matter  of  plurality  of  wives  came  up  incidentally  upon 
inquiry  of  Dunbar  Wilson,  and  that  Hyrum  Smith  went 
out  and  got  the  revelation  and  read  it.  Another  has  it 
that  the  council  was  called  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  revelation;  while  the  third  says  "no  vote  was  taken 
upon  it,  for  the  reason  that  the  voice  of  the  prophet,  in 
such  matters,  was  understood  by  us  to  be  the  voice  of  God 
to  the  church."  One  gives  the  names  of  the  council  who 
were  present,  thirteen  names  in  all,  another  gives  fourteen 
names  certain,  and  he  thinks  the  fifteenth.  This  dis- 
crepancy might  easily  occur  from  lapse  of  memory,  but 


. 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  177 


there  is  a  further  difficulty;  viz.,  these  men  do  not  agree 
as  to  who  their  associate  counselors  were  at  the  time. 
Mr.  Fullmer  names  among  his  thirteen  the  following  who 
were  not  named  by  Mr.  Grover:  George  W.  Harris,  Levi 
Jackman,  Phineas  Richards,  James  Allred,  Dunbar  Wilson; 
while  Mr.  Grover  has  among  his  fourteen  the  following  not 
found  in  Mr.  Fullmer's  thirteen:  C.  C.  Rich,  Alpheus 
Cutler,  Lewis  D.  Wilson,  Newel  Knight,  Isaac  Allred, 
and  H.  G,  Sherwood.  Lewis  D.  Wilson  and  Dunbar 
Wilson  may  possibly  be  the  same  person,  but  the  other 
discrepancies  we  see  no  possibility  of  harmonizing.  Mr. 
Soby  does  not  give  names.  Messrs.  Fullmer  and  Grover 
say  that  Marks,  Cowles,  and  Soby  rejected  the  revelation, 
but  Mr.  Soby  says:  "It  was  received  by  us  as  other 
revelations  had  been."  The  pronoun  us  would  certainly 
include  himself,  and  this  would  agree  with  a  letter  he 
wrote  to  Mr.  Brooks,  of  San  Bernardino,  California, 
which  is  as  follows: 

BETERLY,  N.  J.,  Feb.  26,  1886. 
JAMES  S.  BROOKS: 

Dear  Sir— Yours  of  12th  at  hand,  and  would  state  the  facts 
given  in  the  [Ogden]  Herald  in  regard  to  myself  and  Mr. 
Gurley  are  true.  I  was  present  at  the  High  Council  in  Nauvoo 
when  that  revelation  was  read,  and  know  it  to  be  true,  and  I 
hope  the  Lord  will  bless  you  to  see  the  truth  as  I  do. 
Respectfully,  your  humble  servant, 

LEONARD  SOBY  (a  witness). 

Mr.  Soby  represents  himself  as  accepting  the  revelation 
in  1813,  and  in  1886  still  declares  it  to  be  true;  while 
Messrs.  Fullmer  and  Grover  declare  that  he  opposed  it  in 
1843  in  their  presence,  and  Mr.  Grover  goes  so  far  as  to 
have  Mr.  Soby  damned  for  rejecting  it.  Mr.  Fullmer 
identifies  the  revelation  read  August  12,  1843,  as  being  the 
original  from  which  the  Deseret  News  extra  of  September 
14,  1852,  published  a  copy.  This  is  practically  the  same, 
excepting  some  inaccuracies  in  Bays'  copy,  that  is  pub- 
lished in  "Doctrines  and  Dogmas  of  Mormonism,"  occupy  ing 


178  REPLY   TO  D.   H.  BAYS. 

over  thirteen  pages  of  printed  matter,  and  yet  one  of  Mr. 
Bays'  witnesses,  Mrs.  Thompson,  says  the  document  was 
in  her  hands  for  some  time  and  did  not  cover  more  than 
one  sheet  of  foolscap.  These  are  the  witnesses  relied  upon 
by  Mr.  Bays  to  prove  that  this  document  was  presented  to 
a  High  Council  "convened  for  the  purpose  by  Joseph 
Smith,"  August  12,  1843. 

His  tenth  conclusion  is  based  upon  the  testimony  of 
Brigham  Young  only.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Bays. presents  on 
this  point: 

We  now  wish  to  offer  a  little  evidence  produced  from  another 
quarter.  Relative  to  the  revelation  in  question,  Brigharn 
Young,  in  a  discourse  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  Salt  Lake 
City,  Aug.  29th,  1852,  among  other  things  said: 

"You  heard  Brother  Pratt  state  this  morning  that  a  revela- 
tion would  be  read  this  afternoon,  which  was  given  previous  to 
Joseph's  death.  .  .  .  The  original  copy  of  this  revelation  was 
burnt  up.  William  Clayton  was  the  man  who  wrote  it  from 
the  mouth  of  the  prophet.  In  the  meantime  it  was  in  Bishop 
Whitney's  possession.  He  wished,  the  privilege  to  copy  it, 
which  Brother  Joseph  granted.  Sister  Emma  burnt  the  original. 
The  reason  I  mention  this  is  because  the  people  who  did  not 
know  of  the  revelation  suppose  it  is  not  now  in  existence.  The 
revelation  will  be  read  to  you.  .  .  .  This  revelation  has  been  in 
my  possession  many  years;  and  who  has  known  it?  I  keep  a 
patent  lock  on  my  desk,  and  there  does  not  anything  leak  out 
that  should  not." — Page  364. 

This  is  all  Mr.  Bays  presents  on  this  point,  and  yet  he 
concludes  that  he  has  proved  that  "a  copy  of  this  docu- 
ment was  preserved  by  Brigham  Young. " 

Since  he  has  introduced  Brigham  Young  as  a  witness, 
we  will  examine  his  testimony.  The  reader  will  observe 
that  Mr.  Bays  indicates  omissions  in  two  places.  There  is 
nothing  material  in  the  last  one;  but  had  he  supplied  the 
first  ellipsis  he  would  have  spoiled  his  whole  case.  Here 
are  Young's  words  omitted  by  Bays: 

It  contains  a  doctrine  a  small  portion  of  the  world  is  opposed 
to;  but  I  can  deliver  a  prophecy  upon  it.  Though  that  doc* 
trine  has  not  been  practiced  by  the  Elders,  this  people  have 
believed  in  it  for  years. 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  179 

Elder  Young  here  on  August  29,  1852,  declares  the  doc- 
trine of  polygamy  had  not  been  practiced  by  the  elders.  If 
Mr.  Young  tells  the  truth,  Joseph  Smith  and  other  elders  did 
not  practice  this  doctrine,  and  Mr.  Bays  loses  his  whole 
case.  If  Mr.  Bays  proves  that  polygamy  was  practiced  by 
the  elders  before  August  29,  1852,  he  impeaches  the  wit- 
ness upon  whose  testimony  he  solely  relies  to  prove  that  a 
copy  of  the  document  was  preserved.  If  the  document 
was  not  preserved  we  do  not  know  what,  if  anything,  was 
read  by  Hyrum  Smith  to  the  High  Council,  August  12, 
1843.  If  the  testimony  upon  which  its  preservation  is 
based  is  reliable,  then  the  elders  never  practiced  the  doc- 
trine of  polygamy  before  August  29,  1852.  Will  Mr.  Bays 
explain  why  he  left  out  this  material  point  in  the  testimony 
of  his  own  witness? 

We  might  let  it  rest  here,  but  we  will  introduce  a  few 
more  points.  It  will  be  observed  that  Elder  Young  said, 
and  Elder  Bays  emphasized:  "Sister  Emma  burnt  the 
original."  What  has  Sister  Emma,  who  Bays  says  "was  A 
lady  of  more  than  ordinary  mental  endowments,  and 
possessed  a  reputation  for  honor  and  integrity  that  won 
the  respect  and  esteem  of  those  who  knew  her  best,"  to 
say  about  this?  The  following  account  of  an  interview 
with  her  by  Elder  J.  W.  Briggs  in  April,  1867,  will  be 
pertinent  in  this  connection: 

J.  W.  BRIGGS.— Mrs.  Bidamon,*  have  you  seen  the  revelation 
on  polygamy,  published  by  Orson  Pratt,  in  The  Seer,  in  1852? 

MRS.  B. — I  have. 

.7.  W.  B.-Have  you  read  it? 

MRS.  B. — I  have  read  it,  and  heard  it  read. 

J.  W.  B.-Did  you  ever  see  the  document  in  manuscript, 
previous  to  its  publication,  by  Pratt? 

MRS.  B.  — 1  never  did. 

J.  W.  B.  -  Did  you  ever  see  any  document  of  that  kind, 
purporting  to  be  a  revelation,  to  authorize  polygamy? 

*Mrs.  Bidamon  was  the  widow  of  Joseph  Smith,  she  having  subse- 
quently married  Mr.  Bidamon. 


180  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

MRS.  B.— No.     I  never  did. 

.7.  W.  B.—  Did  Joseph  Smith  ever  teach  you  the  principles  of 
polygamy,  as  being  revealed  to  him,  or  as  a  correct  and  right- 
eous principle? 

MRS.  B.-  He  never  did. 

J.  W.  B. — What  about  that  statement  of  Brigham  Young, 
that  you  burnt  the  original  manuscript  of  that  revelation? 

MRS.  B.  — It  is  false  in  all  its  parts,  made  out  of  whole  cloth, 
without  any  foundation  in  truth.  —  The  Messenger,  vol.  1,  p.  23. 

Elder  Bays,  this  certainly  impeaches  your  witness,  and 
the  only  one  you  have  to  prove  that  the  document  alleged 
to  have  been  read  on  August  12,  1843,  was  preserved. 

Each  of  Mr.  Bays'  ten  conclusions  is  shown  to  be  based 
upon  faulty  and  unreliable  testimony,  and  he  has  not 
established  one  reliable  fact  tending  to  prove  that  Joseph 
Smith  was  the  author  of  polygamy.  There  are,  however, 
some  incidental  matters  brought  out  in  the  examination 
of  this  subject  which  we  will  briefly  notice.  The  state- 
ment of  Elder  William  Marks  is  quoted,  and  we  are  told 
that  ualthough  a  faithful  member  of  the  Reorganized 
Church,  his  testimony  is  never  alluded  to  by  any  of  its 
leading  writers  or  speakers."  This  is  certainly  a  mistake. 
Our  experience  and  observation  have  been  quite  to  the 
contrary.  Our  acquaintance  has  been,  to  say  the  least, 
as  great  as  that  of  Elder  Bays  with  the  leading  writers 
and  speakers  of  the  church,  and  we  have  heard  this  testi- 
mony of  Elder  Marks  quoted  quite  as  frequently  as  any 
other  statement  on  record.  In  fact,  we  have  nothing  to 
fear  from  it.  It  is  as  follows: 

About  the  first  of  June,  1844,  (situated  as  I  was  at  that  time, 
being  the  Presiding  Elder  of  the  Stake  at  Nauvoo,  and  by 
appointment  the  Presiding  Officer  of  the  High  Council)  I  had 
a  very  good  opportunity  to  know  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and 
my  convictions  at  that  time  were,  that  the  Church  in  a  great 
measure  had  departed  from  the  pure  principles  and  doctrines 
of  Jesus  Christ.  I  felt  much  troubled  in  mind  about  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Church.  I  prayed  earnestly  to  my  Heavenly  Father 
to  show  me  something  in  regard  to  it,  when  I  was  wrapt  in 
vision,  and  it  was  shown  me  by  the  Spirit,  that  the  top  or 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  181 


branches  had  overcome  the  root,  in  sin  and  wickedness,  and  the 
only  way  to  cleanse  and  purify  it  was,  to  disorganize  it,  and  in 
due  time,  the  Lord  would  reorganize  it  again.  There  were 
many  other  things  suggested  to  my  mind,  but  the  lapse  of  time 
has  erased  them  from  my  memory.  A  few  days  after  this 
occurrence,  I  met  with  Brother  Joseph.  He  said  that  he 
wanted  to  converse  with  me  on  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and 
we  retired  by  ourselves.  I  will  give  his  words  verbatim,  for 
they  are  indelibly  stamped  upon  my  mind.  He  said  he  had 
desired  for  a  long  time  to  have  a  talk  with  me  on  the  subject  of 
polygamy.  He  said  it  eventually  would  prove  the  overthrow  of 
the  Church,  and  we  should  soon  be  obliged  to  leave  the  United 
States,  unless  it  could  be  speedily  put  down.  He  was  satisfied 
that  it  was  a  cursed  doctrine,  and  that  there  must  be  every 
exertion  made  to  put  it  down.  He  said  that  he  would  go  before 
the  congregation  and  proclaim  against  it,  and  I  must  go  into 
the  High  Council,  and  he  would  prefer  charges  against  those  in 
transgression,  and  I  must  sever  them  from  the  Church,  unless 
they  made  ample  satisfaction.  There  was  much  more  said,  but 
this  was  the  substance.  The  mob  commenced  to  gather  about 
Carthage  in  a  few  days  after,  therefore  there  was  nothing  done 
concerning  it.  After  the  Prophet's  death,  I  made  mention  of 
this  conversation  to  several,  hoping  and  believing  that  it  would 
have  a  good  effect,  but  to  my  great  disappointment,  it  was  soon 
rumored  about  that  Brother  Marks  was  about  to  apostatize,  and 
that  all  that  he  said  about  the  conversation  with  the  Prophet 
was  a  tissue  of  lies.  From  that  time  I  was  satisfied  that  the 
Church  would  be  disorganized,  and  the  death  of  the  Prophet 
and  Patriarch,  tended  to  confirm  me  in  that  opinion.  From 
that  time  I  was  looking  for  a  re-organization  of  the  Church  and 
Kingdom  of  God.  I  feel  thankful  that  I  have  lived  to  again 
behold  the  day,  when  the  basis  of  the  Church  is  the  revelations 
of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  the  only  sure  foundation  to  build 
upon.  I  feel  to  invite  all  my  brethren  to  become  identified 
with  us,  for  the  Lord  is  truly  in  our  midst. 

WILLIAM  MAKKS. 
Shabbonas,  De  Kalb  Co.,  111.,  Oct.  23rd,  1859. 

—  The  Saints'  Herald,  vol.  1,  pp.  25,  26. 

That  some  were  privately  teaching  polygamy  we  have 
never  denied.  Some  had  been  expelled  for  it,  but  yet 
there  were  others  left,  and  this  testimony  shows  that 
Joseph  Smith  was  determined  to  proceed  against  them. 

The  purport  of  this  testimony  is: 

1.  That  Joseph  Smith  declared  it  to  be  "a  cursed 
doctrine." 


182  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

2.  That  he   would    proclaim    against    it  in   the   public 
congregation. 

3.  That    he    would    prefer    charges     against    those    in 
transgression. 

4.  He  instructed  the  President  of  the  High  Council  to 
* 'sever  them  from   the  .Church,  unless   they  made  ample 
satisfaction." 

All  this  is  commendable  and  a  credit  to  Joseph  and  the 
church. 

It  is  not  very  probable,  either,  that  Joseph  Smith  would 
publicly  proclaim  against  a  doctrine,  and  prefer  charges 
against  those  practicing  it,  when  he  himself  was  practic- 
ing it,  and  it  was  known  to  those  against  whom  he  was 
proceeding.  The  testimony  of  Elder  Marks  is  not  shunned 
by  us.  We  want  it  to  appear  here,  and  everywhere,  where 
this  subject  is  discussed.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that 
Elder  Bays  said  of  Elder  Marks: 

He  was  a  man  whose  veracity  was  not  to  be  questioned. — 
Page  3G3. 

Mr.  Bays  occupies  nearly  one  whole  chapter  with  the 
revelation  on  polygamy,  and  declares  it  to  be  the  source 
of  nearly  all  the  corrupt  practices  that  have  later  devel- 
oped in  Salt  Lake  and  elsewhere.  We  agree  with  Elder 
Bays  in  this,  believing  the  document  to  be  among  the 
most  corrupt  and  soul-destroying,  and  its  moral  status  as 
low  as  anything  that  ever  purported  to  be  from  God  in 
any  land  or  in  any  age.  But  is  it  not  a  little  inconsistent 
in  Elder  Bays  to  go  among  the  advocates  and  supporters 
of  this  immoral  philosophy  for  witnesses  to  sustain  his 
conclusions,  while  he  rejects  the  testimony  of  such  men 
as  William  Marks,  " whose  veracity,"  he  says,  "was  not  to 
be  questioned;"  and  such  women  as  Emma  Smith,  the  wife 
of  the  prophet,  who  he  acknowledges  "was  a  lady  of 
more  than  ordinary  mental  endowments,  and  possessed  a 


REPLY   TO   D.   II.   BAYS.  183 

reputation  for  honor  and  integrity  that  won  the  respect 
and  esteem  of  those  who  knew  her  best"? 

Thoughtful  men  now  and  in  the  future  will  ask,  Why 
did  Bays  give  full  and  unreserved  credence  to  the  testi- 
mony of  men  and  women  who  gave  support  to  a  degrading 
and  debasing  system  of  moral  philosophy,  while  he  rejects 
with  disdain  the  testimony  of  men  and  women  of  the 
Reorganization,  many  of  whom  had  as  good  opportunity 
to  know  what  was  done  in  the  church  as  the  other  class, 
and  who  Bays  says,  uare  as  a  rule  honest  and  law-abiding 
people,  and  the  purity  of  whose  lives  no  man  may  truth- 
fully question"?  (Pages  73,  74.) 

Again  it  will  be  asked,  Why  does  Bays  accept  as 
conclusive  the  unsupported  testimony  of  Brigham  Young, 
who,  if  not  the  author,  was  the  leading  advocate  and 
supporter  of  this  debasing  system;  while  he  scorns  the 
testimony  of  one  of  whom  he  says: 

From  a  long  personal  acquaintance  with  President  Smith  I 
take  great  pleasure  in  saying  I  regard  him  as  a  most  excellent 
and  sincere  Christian  gentleman,  and  worthy  of  the  respect  and 
esteem  of  all  good  people.  It'  he  believed  his  father  to  have 
been  the  author  of  the  infamous  revelation  on  polygamy,  h-e 
possesses  both  moral  courage  and  Christian  manhood  td> 
denounce  it  in  the  roundest  terms,  and  would  neither  by  word 
nor  deed  seek  to  justify  even  his  father,  whose  memory  he 
holds  sacred,  in  the  introduction  of  a  doctrine  alike  soul- 
destroying  to  men  and  dishonoring  to  God.— Page  322. 

Will  Bays  or  any  of  his  supporters  be  able  to  answer? 
Bays  charges: 

The  spirit  of  this  "celestial  law"— polygamy  and  eternal 
hatred  of  the  Gentiles— permeated  every  branch  and  faction 
of  the  Mormon  Church  which  sprang  up  immediately  after 
the  death  of  the  prophet.— Pages  359,  360. 

That  this  charge  is  false  will  appear  from  the  following, 
which  we  have  before  published  in  tract  form: 

SIDNEY  BIGDON. 

The  organization  under  Sidney  Rigdon,  who  was  one  of  the 
counselors  of  Joseph  Smith,  expressed  itself  in  the  following 


184  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

vigorous  language,  in  the  Messenger  and  Advocate,  published  by 
Sidney  Rigdon  at  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania,  March  15,  1845: 

"PREAMBLE  AND  RESOLUTIONS,  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

"Whereas,  the  connection  which  has  heretofore  existed 
between  ourselves  and  the  people  calling  themselves  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  renders  it  neces- 
sary that  we  publish  to  the  world  a  succinct  statement  of  facts 
relating  to  the  position  we  now  sustain  to  God  and  our  fellow 
men;  and 

"Whereas,  in  consequence  of  the  rejection  by  that  people,  of 
what  we  undoubtedly  deem  to  be  the  order  of  the  church  and 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  introduction  of  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices clearly  inimical  to  the  law  of  God,  and  altogether 
subversive  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  abrogating  the  marriage 
contract,  and  substituting  under  the  professed  sanction  of 
Heaven,  a  system  of  extreme  licentiousness,  uprooting  every 
legal  restraint,  and  eminently  calculated  in  its  very  nature  to 
produce  the  entire  destruction  of  every  virtuous  tie,  and  pour- 
ing contempt  upon  every  holy  principle  contained  in  the 
revelations  of  God  to  his  creature  man,  and  must  inevitably 
entail  upon  that  people  abject  wretchedness  and  woe,  subject- 
ing them  to  the  righteous  condemnation  of  every  virtuous 
intelligence,  whether  in  heaven  or  on  earth;  and 

"Whereas,  the  better  to  conceal  the  justly  odious  system  of 
polygamy,  duplicity,  hypocrisy,  and  falsehood  are  inculcated 
as  virtues,  the  most  sacred  obligations  constantly  violated,  and 
families  and  individuals  plunged  into  irrevocable  ruin  and 
despair;  therefore 

"Resolved,  that  we  hold  no  fellowship  with  the  people  calling 
themselves  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
and  can  have  no  communion  with  them,  unless  they  repent  and 
obey  the  principles  of  righteousness  and  truth. 

"Resolved,  that  we  maintain  the  truth  and  the  truth  only,  at 
all  hazards,  renouncing  at  once  and  forever,  the  unsanctifying 
dogma  that  it  is  sometimes  lawful  to  lie. 

"Resolved,  that  our  subjection  to  the  law  of  God  impels  us  to 
yield  implicit  obedience  to  the  law  of  the  land. 

"Resolved,  that  we  maintain  and  do  earnestly  contend  for 
the  faith  which  was  once,  and  is  again,  delivered  to  the  saints, 
contained  in  the  Bible,  Book  of  Mormon,  and  Book  of  Cove- 
nants. 

"Resolved,  that  we  feel  it  a  solemn  and  imperative  obligation 
we  owe  to  God  and  our  fellow  men  to  disseminate  to  the  extent 
of  our  ability,  correct  information  regarding  certain  pernicious 
doctrines  and  practices  which  are  secretly  taught  by  the  leaders 
and  many  of  the  members  of  the  society  called  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints;  verily  believing  them 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  185 

demoralizing  and  destructive,  combining  all  the  worst  features 
of  barbarism,  and  containing  all  the  elements  of  the  wildest 
anarchy,  and  would  if  unchecked  by  the  power  of  truth,  ulti- 
mately extinguish  the  species." — Messenger  and  Advocate,  vol.  1, 
p.  176. 

JAMES   J.    STRANG. 

Though  Mr.  Strang  did  teach  and  practice  polygamy  years 
afterward,  it  is  evident  that  he  did  not  so  do  before  1848. 

It  was  not  claimed  by  him,  nor  is  it  claimed  by  his  adherents, 
that  he  received  this  doctrine  from  Joseph  Smith  or  from  the 
church  at  Nauvoo;  but  from  the  Book  of  the  Law  which  Mr. 
Strang  claimed  to  have  translated  from  plates  by  himself  found 
in  the  earth.  This  also  appears  from  the  following  quotations, 
all  of  which  are  taken  from  publications  issued  by  authority 
of  Mr.  Strang  and  his  organization. 

At  a  conference  held  by  them  at  Kirtland,  Ohio,  August  7-10, 
184G,  they  adopted  the  following: 

"Resolved  unanimously.  That  we  utterly  disclaim  the 
whole  system  of  polygamy  known  as  the  spiritual  wife  system 
lately  set  up  in  Nauvoo,  by  the  apostates  who  claim  the 
authority  there,  and  will  neither  practice  such  things  nor  hold 
any  fellowship  with  those  that  teach  or  practice  such  things." 
—  Voree  Herald,  September,  1846. 

This  was  confirmed  at  a  General  Conference  held  at  Voree, 
Wisconsin,  October  6-19,  as  the  following  will 'show: 

"The  proceedings  of  the  special  conference,  at  Kirtland,  of 
August  6,  7,  8,  and  9,  were  presented  by  President  Strang. 

"On  motion  of  General  Bennett,  resolved  unanimously,  that 
this  General  Conference  cordially  approve  of  the  reorganization 
of  the  stake  of  Kirtland,  and  of  the  proceedings  of  its  special 
conference." — Voree  Herald,  October,  1846. 

In  Zion' s 'Reveille  for  July  22,  1847,  is  an  article  from  the  pen 
of  the  editor,  James^  J.  Strang,  entitled,  "Polygamy  not  Possi- 
ble in  a  Free  Government." 

In  the  same  publication  for  August  5,  1847,  there  is  an  article 
from  the  pen  of  John  E.  Page,  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  at 
the  time  of  Joseph  Smith's  death,  from  which  we  extract  the 
following: 

"To  THE  SAINTS;   Greeting: 

"Our  eyes  and  ears  are  sometimes  saluted  with  communi- 
cations from  abroad  that  there  are  persons  who  profess  to  be 
adherents  to  President  J.  J.  Strang,  who  are  privately  teaching 
and  some  practicing  what  is  called  the  'western  camp  doctrine,' 
or,  in  other  words,  'spiritual  wifery'  or  polygamy.  We  also 
hear  that  there  are  some  persons  who  do  President  Strang  the 
injustice  to  say  that  he  justifies  the  principle  above  stated. 

"This  is  to  say  emphatically,  and  we  mean  just  what  we  say, 


186  REPLY   TO   D.    H.   BAYS. 

and  if  our  course  in  the  future  does  not  prove  us  true  in  this 
matter  then  let  that  execration  rest  on  us  that  is  due  to  such  a 
course  of  conduct,  that  \ve  believe  ourself  to  be  as  much 
ingratiated  into  the  confidence  of  President  Strang  as  any 
other  man.  (This  we  say  without  egotism,  merely  to  discharge 
a  moral  duty.) 

"We  have  talked  hours,  yea,  even  days  with  President 
Strang  on  the  subject  of  the  temporal  and  moral  condition  and 
character  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
and  we  find  to  our  utmost  satisfaction  that  he  does  not  believe 
in  or  cherish  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  in  any  manner,  shape, 
or  form  imaginable  whatever." — Vol.  2,  p.  83. 

The  same  publication  for  August  12,  1847,  contains  a  card 
from  James  J.  Strang  relating  to  the  above,  reading  as  follows: 

"Elder  John  E.  Page  has  referred  me  to  an  article  in  No.  20 
addressed  'To  the  Saints;  Greeting.'  In  the  remarks  he  has 
there  made  he  has  justly  and  truly  represented  my  sentiments. 
I  am  only  astonished  that  it  should  be  necessary  to  state  them 
at  all.  Within  three  years  I  have,  in  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
traveled  over  sixteen  thousand  miles,  visited  all  the  States 
north  of  the  Carol inas  but  three,  most  of  them  several  times, 
preached  to  large  congregations  in  all  the  principal  cities  and 
in  most  of  the  large  branches  in  the  country.  And  I  have 
uniformly  and  most  distinctly  discarded  and  declared  heretical 
the  so-called  'spiritual  idfe  system'  and  everything  connected 
therewith.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  several  men  of  talent 
and  influence  have  separated  from  me  and  from  the  Church  of 
God,  merely  because  I  would  not  in  any  manner  countenance 
such  a  doctrine.  One  of  them,  Reuben  Miller,  has,  in  a 
pamphlet  extensively  circulated,  given  as  a  reason  for  sepa- 
rating from  the  church  and  becoming  a  Brighamite  that  I  did 
not  believe  in  the  'spiritual  wife  system.'  I  have  recently 
refused  to  ordain  a  man  to  a  high  and  responsible  office, 
although  a  warm  personal  friend,  and  after  he  had  been 
sustained  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  a  General  Conference,  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  it  was  discovered  that  he  believed  in 
*spiritual  wifery.'  I  now  say  distinctly,  and  I  defy  contradic- 
tion, that  the  man  or  woman  does  not  exist  on  earth  or  under 
the  earth  who  ever  heard  me  say  one  word,  or  saw  me  do  one 
act,  savoring  in  the  least  of  spiritual  icifery,  or  any  of  the 
attending  abominations.  My  opinions  on  this  subject  are 
unchanged,  and  I  regard  them  as  unchangeable.  They  are 
established  on  a  full  consideration  of  ALL  the  Scriptures,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  and  the  discipline  of  the  church  SHALL 
conform  thereto.  But  I  do  not  profess  to  be  omniscient,  and  if 
any  are  found  in  this  fault,  not  in  rny  presence,  it  is  necessary 
that  those  who  know  the  facts  present  them  to  the  proper 
council  and  attend  to  it.  If,  like  many  I  know  of,  when  a 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  187 

brother  finds  others  in  this  sin  he  renounces  the  prophet  and 
denies  the  faith,  or  like  others  STANDS  STILL,  HIS  damnation  is 
sure.  I  know  little  difference  between  the  heresy  in  the  one 
case  or  the  other.  JAMES  J.  STRANG, 

"President  of  the  Church. 
k-VoREE   August  6,  1847." 

-Vol.  2,  p.  88. 

The  October  conference  minutes  for  1847  contain  the  follow- 
ing entries: 

"James  M.  Adams,  apostle,  excommunicated  for  apostasy  and 
believing  the  spiritual  wife  system.  Delivered  over  to  the 
buffetings  of  Satan  till  he  repent.  And  the  whole  congregation 
lifted  their  hands  against  him. 

"Benjamin  0.  Ellsworth,  excommunicated  for  teaching  and 
practicing  the  spiritual  wife  system.  Delivered  over  to  the 
butfetings  of  Satan  till  the  day  of  the  Lord.  And  the  whole 
congregation  lifted  their  hands  against  him." — Gospel  Herald, 
Oct.  14,  1847,  vol.  2,  p.  122. 

On  December  23,  1847,  J.  W.  Crane  was  tried  before  the  First 
Presidency,  J.  J.  Strang  being  present,  and  convicted  under 
nine  counts,  the  third  being: 

"Heresy;  teaching  that  it  is  right  to  plunder  unbelievers; 
three  witnesses.  Teaching  that  saints  may  have  other  women 
than  one  wife;  five  witnesses." — Gospel  Herald,  vol.  2,  p.  192. 

These  extracts  show  conclusively  that  whatever  Strang  may 
have  subsequently  taught  on  this  subject,  he  did  not  receive 
the  doctrine  until  more  than  three  and  a  half  years  after  the 
death  of  Joseph  Smith. 

In  addition  to  the  above  we  quote  from  a  letter  of  Charles  J. 
Strang.  son  of  J.  J.  Strang,  under  date  of  .Inly  18,  1882: 

"In  1846,  at  Voree,  Strang  pronounced  a  curse  upon  certain 
ministers,  a  portion  of  which  I  here  quote:  'As  for  those  who, 
tis  gospel  ministers,  have  assumed  to  teach  such  damning,  soul- 
destroying  doctrines  (that  deceit,  fraud,  lying,  perjury, 
plundering  unbelievers,  polygamy,  fornication,  and  adultery 
are  required  by  the  command  of  Gael  in  the  upbuilding  of  his 
kingdom)  in  the  name  of  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  may 
their  bones  rot  in  the  living  tomb  of  their  flesh;  may  their  flesh 
generate  from  its  own  corruptions  a  loathsome  life  for  others; 
may  their  blood  swarm  a  leprous  life  of  motelike  ghastly  cor- 
ruption, feeding  on  flowing  life,  generating  chilling  agues  and 
burning  fevers.  .  .  .  And  I  prayed  unto  God,  saying,  Oh,  God, 
curse  them  not,  and  let  me  not  raise  my  voice  against  my  fel- 
lows! But  he  said,  Curse,  course,  curse!  I  will  altogether  curse, 
until  they  return  to  me,  for  they  have  perverted  my  law  and 
deceived  my  servants;  unto  the  Destroyer  shalt  thou  deliver 
them,  for  their  prayer  is  sin.'  ' 


188  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

CHARLES   B.    THOMPSON. 

Charles  B.  Thompson  claimed  to  be  the  Baneemy  spoken  of 
in  Doctrine  and  Covenants  102:8.  He  located  at  Preparation, 
Monona  county,  Iowa.  He  placed  himself  upon  record,  by 
presenting  the  following  as  revelation  from  God  to  him: 

"And,  behold,  polygamy,  or  a  plurality  of  wives,  is  an  abomi- 
nation before  me,  and  is  forever  forbidden,  in  this  my  Holy 
Presbytery  of  Zion,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah." — The  Law  and 
Covenants  of  Israel,  pp.  184,  185. 

J.    C.    BREWSTER. 

The  organization  under  Hazen  Aldrich  and  J.  C.  Brewster, 
usually  called  Brewsterites,  which  operated  at  Kirtland,  Ohio, 
and  Springfield,  Illinois,  from  1848  and  after,  and  some  of 
whom  emigrated  in  1850  to  New  Mexico  or  California,  were 
equally  emphatic  on  this  point. 

In  an  article  against  polygamy  by  J.  Goodale.  one  of  their 
Presidency,  on  July  29,  1849,  occurs  the  following: 

"The  above  is  sufficient  to  silence  every  one  that  would  dare 
to  teach  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  and  at  the  same  time  pretend 
to  believe  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  And  I  believe  that  there  is 
not  one  of  the  different  and  conflicting  parties  into  which  the 
church  is  divided,  that  teach  or  believe  the  doctrine  of 
polygamy,  except  that  which  has  gone  west  under  the 
guidance  of  Brigham  Young;  and  yet  they  are  accusing  all 
of  being  apostates  that  cannot  and  will  not  follow  their 
teaching  in  all  things."—  Olive  Branch,  vol.  2,  p.  20. 

WILLIAM  BICKERTON. 

The  declaration  of  the  company  or  organization  under 
William  Bickerton  was  no  less  emphatic  upon  this  point. 
Here  is  their  declaration  found  in  their  articles  of  faith 
published  in  a  pamphlet  issued  by  them  called  the  Ensign, 
page  20: 

"We  believe  that  a*man  shall  have  but  one  wife,  and  concu- 
bines he  shall  have  none:  for  I,  the  Lord  God,  delighteth  in  the 
chastity  of  women,  and  whoredoms  are  an  abomination  before 
me:  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Again  in  the  second  chapter 
of  Malachi,  verse  15:  'And  did  he  not  make  one?  Yet  had  he 
the  residue  of  the  Spirit.  And  wherefore  one?  That  he  might 
seek  a  godly  seed.  Therefore  take  heed  to  your  spirit,  and  let 
none  deal  treacherously  against  the  wife  of  his  youth.'  " 

So  far  as  we  have  learned,  polygamy  and  spiritual  wifery 
were  confined  for  at  least  three  years  after  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith  unto  such  organizations  as  were  controlled  or  influenced 
by  members  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve.  The  logical  inference 
therefore  is  that  if  there  existed  a  common  school  where  these 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  189 

theories  were  inculcated,  that  school  must  have  been  in  the 
Quorum  of  the  Twelve  over  which  Brigham  Young  presided. 

This  inference  too  is  made  stronger  when  we  consider  a 
statement  made  by  Brigham  Young,  on  June  21,  1874,  as 
reported  in  his  organ,  the  Deseret  Neics  of  July  1  of  that  year. 
While  speaking  on  this  doctrine  he  said: 

"While  we  were  in  England  (in  1839  and  40),  I  think,  the 
Lord  manifested  to  me  by  vision  and  his  Spirit  things  that  I 
did  not  then  understand.  I  never  opened  my  mouth  to  anyone 
concerning  them,  until  I  returned  to  Nauvoo;  Joseph  had 
never  mentioned  this;  there  had  never  been  a  thought  of  it  in 
the  church  that  I  ever  knew  anything  about  at  that  time;  but 
I  had  this  for  myself,  and  I  kept  it  to  myself." — The  Messenger, 
vol.  1,  p.  29. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  say  in  conclusion  that  when  Elder 
Young  in  August,  1852,  desired  the  church  to  approve  of  the 
revelation  authorizing  polygamy,  he  gave  it  a  date  nine  years 
previous  to  its  presentation,  and  connected  Joseph  Smith's 
name  with  it.  He  well  knew  that  the  name  of  Joseph  Smith 
was  revered  and  honored  by  the  people,  and  anything  presented 
in  his  name  would  be  more  likely  to  be  approved  than  if  com 
ing  in  his  own  name. 

It  is  also  quite  significant  that  the  witnesses  by  which  Joseph 
Smith's  complicity  with  the  doctrine  is  sought  to  be  estab- 
lished, have  in  a  large  majority  of  instances  been  themselves 
implicated  in  the  practice  before  testifying. 

Bays  must  have  been  ignorant  of  all  this  or  he  would 
have  refrained  from  saying  that  polygamy  had  "permeated! 
every  branch  and  faction  of  the  Mormon  Church  which 
sprang  up  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  prophet." 
The  reverse  is  true;  those  who  did  adopt  it  with  tho 
exception  of  the  one  under  B.  Young,  adopted  it  later,  and 
not  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  prophet.  Some,  and 
a  large  majority  of  the  factions,  never  did  adopt  it. 

The  following  sworn  statements  are  produced  by  Bays: 

"TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN! 

"We,  Ebenezer  Robinson  and  Angeline  Robinson,  husband 
and  wife,  hereby  certify  that  in  the  fall  of  1841*  Hyrum  Smith, 
brother  of  Joseph  Smith,  came  to  our  house  at  Nauvoo,  Illinois, 
and  taught  us  the  doctrine  of  polygamy.  And  I,  the  said 
Ebenezer  Robinson,  hereby  further  state  that  he  gave  me 
special  instructions  how  I  could  manage  the  matter  so  as  not  to 
have  it  known  to  the  public.  He  also  told  us  that  while  he  had 


190  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

heretofore  opposed  the  doctrine,  he  was  wrong  and  his  brother 
Joseph  was  right;  referring  to  his  teaching1  it. 

"EBENEZER  ROBINSON. 

"ANGELINE  E.  ROBINSON. 

"Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  29th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1873.  [L.  s.]  J.  M.  SALLEE,  Notary  Public." 

"TO  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN: 

"This  is  to  certify  that  in  the  latter  part  of  November,  or  in 
December,  1843,  Hyrum  Smith  (brother  of  Joseph  Smith, 
President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints) 
came  to  my  house  in  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  and  taught  me  the 
doctrine  of  spiritual  wives,  or  polygamy. 

"He  said  he  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  give  the  revelation 
on  spiritual  wifery  (polygamy)  to  his  brother  Joseph,  and  that 
•while  he  had  heretofore  opposed  the  doctrine,  he  was  wrong, 
and  his  brother  Joseph  was  right  all  the  time. 

"He  told  me  to  make  a  selection  of  some  young  woman  and 
he  would  send  her  to  me,  and  take  her  to  my  home,  and  if  she 
should  have  an  heir,  to  give  out  word  that  she  had  a  husband 
who  had  gone  on  a  mission  to  a  foreign  country.  He  seemed 
disappointed  when  I  declined  to  do  so.  E.  ROBINSON. 

"Davis  City,  Iowa,  October  $3,  1885. 

"Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  a  Notary  Public  in  and 
for  Decatur  County,  Iowa,  this  24th  day  of  Octo*ber,  A.  D.  1885. 

[L.  s.]  "Z.  H.  GURLEY,  Notary  Public." 

—Pages  369-371. 

These  statements,  if  true,  implicate  no  one  but  Hyrum 
Smith;  but  their  credibility  is  rendered  doubtful  by  the 
fact  that  these  parties  were  associated  with  the  Reorgani- 
zation for  many  years,  right  at  the  time  when  representa- 
tives of  the  church  from  pulpit  and  press  were  demanding 
evidence  that  polygamy  was  taught  by  Joseph  and  Hyrum 
Smith,  and  they  were  as  silent  as  the  tomb,  until  they 
became  disaffected,  and  in  various  ways  tried  to  destroy 
the  fair  fame  of  the  church  and  its  founders.  Had  they 
known  what  they  afterwards  testified  to,  it  would  have 
been  the  part  of  honesty  and  fairness  to  have  said, 
Brethren,  you  are  wrong;  for  our  experience  is  to  the 
contrary.  But  no,  there  was  no  protest,  no  correction  of 
error.  On  the  contrary,  Elder  Robinson,  on  January  22, 
1869,  wrote  of  his  experience  in  the  Reorganization  as 
follows: 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  191 

For  years  I  longed  for  the  time  to  come  when  the  same  peace- 
ful and  pure  Spirit  would  be  poured  out  upon  the  church, 
which  was  received  and  enjoyed  at  the  beginning  of  the  work 
of  the  last  days;  behold  here  I  find  it,  and  why  should  I  not 
rejoice? 

My  lot,  as  you  are  aware,  is  to  mingle  almost  constantly  with 
the  business  men  of  the  world,  and  much  of  the  time  com- 
paratively with  strangers,  and  then  to  have  the  privilege  o'f 
sitting  quietly  in  a  brother's  parlor  and  read  of  the  dealings  of 
our  heavenly  Father  with  His  children  in  different  countries 
and  in  different  lands,  furnishes  such  a  happy  contrast  that  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  find  language  to  express  my  gratitude.  —  The 
Saints'  Herald,  vol.  15,  p.  121. 

It  will  also  be  observed  that  these  witnesses  claim  that 
this  interview  with  Hyrum  Smith  took  place  in  the  fall  of 
1843 — November  or  December — and  that  he  then  said  "he 
had  heretofore  opposed  the  doctrine;"  while  three  of 
Bays'  witnesses;  viz.,  Mrs.  Thompson  (p.  171),  Leonard 
Soby  (p.  174),  and  David  Fullmer  (p.  175),  declare  that 
Hyrum  Smith  read  the  revelation  and  indorsed  the 
doctrine  on  the  12th  of  August  before.  Bays  should 
notice  that  his  witnesses  condemn  each  other. 

We  think  it  unjust  and  improper  to  condemn  Hyrum 
Smith  on  this  character  of  testimony.  We  might  present 
much  more  in  refutation  of  Bays'  allegation  that  Joseph 
Smith  was  the  author  of  polygamy,  but  having  entirely 
demolished  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  we  rest  here. 


CHAPTER  9. 

The  Gathering— Zion's  Camp,  Purpose  of — Committees  Negoti- 
ate—Statement  of  Joseph  Smith -Of  Lyman  Wight — Of  H. 
C.  Kimball— Of  P.  P.  Pratt  — Garbling— Statement  of  Gillium 
— Propositions  of  Mormons  —  More  Garbling  —  Mistakes 
Possible. 

ELDER  BAYS'  next  chapter  is  on  the  subject  of  "The 
Gathering."  Starting  out  as  usual  upon  a  false  basis,  he 
arrives  at  some  damaging  conclusions.  He  assumes  that 
the  revelation  of  February,  1834,  provides  for  forcible  and 
literal  subjugation;  and  that  the  Camp  of  Zion  which  went 
up  to  Missouri  in  1834  went  with  the  intention  of  opening 
hostilities,  forcibly  taking  possession  of  the  land,  and  of 
breaking  down  the  walls,  throwing  down  the  tower,  and 
scattering  the  enemy  by  force  of  arms.  From  this  stand- 
point he  deduces  failure.  We  grant  that  some  may  have 
so  understood  the  situation,  and  that  even  some  of  the 
participants  may  have  been  imbued  with  the  war  spirit; 
but  that  this  was  not  the  understanding  of  the  leaders  is. 
evident.  To  establish  this  we  have  only  to  quote  the 
opinions  of  some  as  expressed  at  the  time.  While  he  and 
others  were  east  raising  men  and  means  for  the  expedition, 
Joseph  Smith  explained  the  object  to  a  meeting  assembled 
at  Mr.  Alvah  Beman's  in  Livingston  county,  New  York, 
March  17,  1834.  He  states: 

I  stated  that  the  object  of  the  conference  was  to  obtain  young 
men  and  middle  aged  to  go  and  assist  in  the  redemption  of 
Zion,  according  to  the  commandment;  and  for  the  church  to 
gather  up  their  riches,  and  send  them  to  purchase  lands  accord- 
ing to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord;  also  to  devise  means,  or 
obtain  money  for  the  relief  of  the  brethren  in  Kirtland.  say 
two  thousand  dollars,  which  sum  would  deliver  the  church  in 
Kirtland  from  debt;  and  also  determine  the  course  which  the 
192 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  193 

several  companies  shall  pursue,  or  the  manner  they  shall  jour- 
ney when  they  shall  leave  this  place.— Church  History,  vol.  1, 
p.  442. 

It  will  be  seen  by  this  that  his  purpose  was  to  gather 
money  and  purchase  the  lands,  and.  he  claimed  that  this 
was  "according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord."  Just 
at  that  time  negotiations  were  pending  between  the  church 
in  Missouri  and  citizens  of  Jackson  county,  Missouri,  for 
one  party  or  the  other  to  purchase  the  interests  of  the 
other. 

At  a  meeting  held  at  Liberty,  Missouri,  June  16,  1834, 
a  proposition  was  made  by  a  committee  from  Jackson 
county,  Missouri,  composed  of  Messrs.  Samuel  0.  Owens, 
Richard  Fristoe,  and  Thomas  Hayton,  Sr.  After  making 
certain  propositions  to  buy  out  the  Mormons,  they  say: 

They  further  propose,  that  the  people  of  Jackson  will  sell  all 
their  lands,  and  improvements  on  public  lands,  in  Jackson 
County,  to  the  Mormons,  — the  valuation  to  be  obtained  in  the 
same  manner,— the  same  per  cent,  in  addition  to  be  paid,  and 
the  time  the  money  is  to  be  paid  is  the  same,  as  the  above  set 
forth  in  our  propositions  to  buy,  the  Mormons  to  give  good 
security  for  the  payment  of  the  money,- and  the  undersigned 
will  give  security  that  the  land  will  be  conveyed  to  the  Mor- 
mons.—Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  495. 

On  June  23,  the  following  reply  was  made: 

We  the  undersigned  committee,  having  full  power  and 
authority  to  settle  and  adjust  all  matters  and  differences 
existing  between  our  people  or  society  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Jackson  County,  upon  honorable  and  constitutional  principles, 
therefore,  if  the  said  inhabitants  of  Jackson  County  will  not  let 
us  return  to  our  lands  in  peace,  we  are  willing  to  propose, 
firstly;  that  twelve  disinterested  men,  six  to  be  chosen  by  our 
people,  and  six  by  the  inhabitants  of  Jackson  County;  and 
-  these  twelve  men  shall  say  what  the  lands  of  those  men  are 
\vorth  in  that  county  who  cannot  consent  to  live  with  us,  and 
they  shall  receive  their  money  for  the  same  in  one  year  from 
the  time  the  treaty  is  made,  and  none  of  our  people  shall  enter 
the  county  to  reside  till  the  money  is  paid.  The  said  twelve 
men  shall  have  power  also  to  say  what  the  damages  shall  be  for 
the  injuries  we  have  sustained  in  the  destruction  of  property 


194  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

and   in  being  driven   from  our  possessions,   which  amount  of 
damages  shall  be  deducted  from   the  amount  for  their  lands. 
Our  object  is  peace,  and  an  early  answer  will  be  expected. 
(Signed)  W.  W.  PHELPS. 

EDWARD  PARTRIDGE. 

ISAAC  MORLEY. 

JOHN  CORRILL. 

JOHN  WHITMER. 

A.  S.  GILBERT. 
—Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  499. 

By  these  extracts  it  will  be  seen  that  the  church  in  Mis- 
souri were  negotiating  for  the  purchase  of  the  lands,  at 
the  very  time  that  their  brethren  in  the  east  were  coming 
to  their  relief  with  means  to  relieve  their  suffering,  and 
assist  them  in  purchasing  lands.  A  part  of  the  company 
left  Kirtland,  Ohio,  May  1,  1834,  and  Joseph  Smith  with 
the  remainder  of  the  company  started  on  the  5th.  So  they 
were  on  their  way  when  these  notes  were  exchanged 
between  the  two  committees  in  Missouri.  Had  the  church 
in  Missouri  been  expecting  an  army  of  conquest,  they 
would  not  have  made  propositions  to  buy.  Joseph  Smith 
in  his  history,  under  date  of  May  5,  1834,  says: 

Having  gathered  and  prepared  clothing  and  other  necessaries 
to  carry  to  our  brethren  and  sisters  who  had  been  robbed  and 
plundered  of  nearly  all  their  effects;  and  having  provided  for 
ourselves  horses  and  wagons,  and  firearms,  and  all  sorts  of 
munitions  of  war  of  the  most  portable  kind  for  self-defense,  as 
our  enemies  were  thick  on  every  hand,  I  started  with  the 
remainder  of  the  company,  from  Kirtland,  for  Missouri,  and  on 
the  6th  we  arrived,  and  joined  our  brethren  who  had  gone 
before,  at  New  Portage,  about  fifty  miles  distance. — Church 
History,  vol.  1,  pp.  454," 455. 

IProm  this  it  appears  that  their  purpose  was  to  supply 
the  wants  of  their  brethren,  and  the  ' 'munitions  of  war" 
were  simply  to  be  used  in  "self-defense,"  and  not  aggres- 
sively. 

The  following  from  the  private  journal  of  Lyman  Wight, 
one  of  the  active  participants,  under  date  of  April  13, 
1834,  agrees  substantially  with  the  foregoing: 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  195 

Preached  to  a  large  congregation  (in  Kirtland)  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  having  been  driven  from  Jackson  County,  of  our 
extreme  sufferings,  and  of  the  great  necessity  of  being  obedi- 
ent to  the  commandments;  and  also  the  necessity  of  those  of 
like  faith  sympathizing  with  their  brothers  and  sisters.  This 
discourse  appeared  to  have  a  good  effect;  about  seventy  volun- 
teered to  fly  to  their  relief  even  if  death  should  be  the 
consequence  thereof.  Many  donated  largely  of  their  substance 
to  supply  the  wants  of  the  need\r.  I  spent  the  night  with  Bro. 
Joseph,  and  had  much  conversation  with  him  concerning  our 
peculiar  circumstances.— Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  443. 

The  following,  from  the  pen  of  H.  C.  Kimba1!,  also  a 
leading  participant,  will  be  in  point: 

At  this  time  also  our  brethren  were  suffering  great  persecu- 
tion in  Jackson  County,  Missouri;  about  twelve  hundred  were 
driven,  plundered,  and"  robbed;  and  their  houses  burned  and 
some  were  killed.  The  whole  country  seemed  to  be  in  arms 
against  us,  ready  to  destroy  us.  Brother  Joseph  received  a 
lengthy  revelation  concerning  the  redemption  of  Zion,  which 
remains  to  be  fulfilled  in  a  great  measure.  But  he  thought  it 
best  to  gather  together  as  many  of  the  brethren  as  he  con- 
veniently could,  with  what  means  they  could  spare,  and  go  up 
to  Zion  to  render  all  the  assistance  that  we  could  to  our 
afflicted  brethren.  We  gathered  clothing  and  other  necessaries 
to  carry  up  to  our  brethren  and  sisters  who  had  been  stripped; 
and  putting  our  horses  to  the  wagons,  and  taking  our  firelocks 
and  ammunition,  we  started  on  our  journey;  leaving  only 
Oliver  Cowdery,  Sidney  Rigdon,  and  the  workmen  who  were 
engaged  at  the  temple;  so  that  there  were  very  few  men  left  in 
Kirtland.  Our  wagons  were  about  full  with  baggage,  etc., 
consequently  we  had  to  travel  on  foot.  We  started  on  the  5th 
of  May,  and  truly  this  was  a  solemn  morning  to  me.  I  took 
leave  of  my  wife  and  children  and  friends,  not  expecting  ever 
to  see  them  again,  as  myself  and  brethren  were  threatened 
both  in  that  country  and  in  Missouri  by  the  enemies,  that  they 
would  destroy  us  and  exterminate  us  from  the  land.  —  Church 
History,  vol.  1,  p.  450. 

To  this  we  add  the  statement  of  P.  P.  Pratt,  who  also 
took  an  active  part  in  the  expedition: 

It  was  now  the  first  of  May,  1834,  and  our  mission  had 
resulted  in  the  assembling  of  about  two  hundred  men  at 
Kirtland,  with  teams,  baggage,  provisions,  arms,  etc.,  for  a 
march  of  one  thousand  miles,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  some 
s-mplies  to  the  afflicted  and  persecuted  saints  in  Missouri,  and 
t  reinforce  and  strengthen  them;  and,  if  possible,  to  influence 


196  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

the  Governor  of  the  State  to  call  out  sufficient  additional  force 
to  cooperate  in  restoring  them  to  their  rights.  This  little  army 
was  led  by  President  Joseph  Smith  in  person.  It  commenced 
its  march  about  the  first  of  May.  Passing  through  Ohio, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois,  it  entered  Missouri  sometime  in  June. — 
Church  History,  vol.  1,  pp.  456,  457. 

These  witnesses  and  circumstances  agree  as  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  expedition,  and  show  that  the  purpose  was  not 
aggressive  warfare.  This  is  in  harmony  with  instruction 
previously  given,  and  with  which  the  Saints  were  well 
acquainted.  In  a  revelation  given  in  August,  1831,  occurs 
the  following: 

I,  the  Lord,  willeth,  that  you  should  purchase  the  lands,  that 
you  may  have  advantage  of  the  world,  that  you  may  have  claim 
on  the  world,  that  they  may  not  be  stirred  up  unto  anger;  for 
Satan  putteth  it  into  their  hearts  to  anger  against  you,  and  to 
the  shedding  of  blood;  wherefore  the  land  of  Zion  shall  n*ot  be 
obtained  but  by  purchase,  or  by  blood,  otherwise  there  is  none 
inheritance  for  you.  And  if  by  purchase,  behold,  you  are 
blessed;  and  if  by  blood,  as  you  are  forbidden  to  shed  blood,  lo, 
your  enemies  are  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  scourged  from  city 
to  city,  and  from  synagogue  to  synagogue,  and  but  few  shall 
stand  to  receive  an  inheritance. — Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec. 
63,  par.  8. 

By  this  they  were  given  to  understand  that  they  would 
not  have  power  over  their  enemies  in  a  resort  to  arms,  but 
would  be  scourged  from  city  to  city;  hence  when  the  reve- 
lation of  February,  1834,  was  given  containing  some 
strong  language  which  might  have  been  construed  into  a 
hostile  declaration,  they  very  sensibly  interpreted  it  in 
harmony  with  former  instruction,  and  made  preparation 
to  buy  the  land.  Nor  can  the  revelation  in  question  be 
legitimately  interpreted  to  justify  a  resort  to  arms  only  in 
defense.  Here  it  becomes  our  painful  duty  to  again  expose 
Bays'  trickery  in  quoting  the  passage  so  as  to  leave  out 
the  main  point  concerning  the  command  to  purchase  the 
land,  thus  revealing  an  unmistakable  design  to  deceive. 
Here  is  the  passage  as  Bays  quotes  it: 


REPLY   TO  D.   H.   BAYS.  197 


"Therefore  let  my  servant  Baurak  Ale  say  unto  the  strength  of 
my  house,  my  middle  aged,  gather  yourselves  together  unto  the 
landofZion;  .  .  .  and  inasmuch  as  mine  enemies  come  against 
you  to  drive  you  from  my  goodly  land,  .  .  .  ye  shall  curse  them; 
.ami  whomsoever  ye  curse  I  will  curse;  and  ye  shall  avenge  me 
of  mine  enemies;  and  my  presence  shall  be  with  you,  even  in 
avenging  me  of  mine  enemies,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  gen- 
eration of  them  that  hate  me. "—Page  401. 

The  following  is  the  same  passage  as  it  occurs  in  the 
b^ok : 

Therefore,  let  my  servant  Baurak  Ale  say  unto  the  strength 
of  my  house,  my.young  men  and  the  middle  aged,  Gather  your- 
selves together  unto  the  land  of  Zion,  upon  the  land  which  I 
have  bought  with  moneys  that  have  been  consecrated  unto  me; 
and  let  all  the  churches  send  up  wise  men,  with  their  moneys, 
and  purchase  lands  even  as  I  have  commanded  them;  and  inas- 
much as  mine  enemies  come  against  you  to  drive  you  from  my 
goodly  land,  which  I  have  consecrated  to  be  the  land  of  Zion; 
even  from  your  own  lands  after  these  testimonies,  which  ye 
have  brought  before  me,  against  them,  ye  shall  curse  them; 
and  whomsoever  ye  curse,  I  will  curse:  and  ye  shall  avenge  me 
of  mine  enemies;  and  my  presence  shall  be  with  you,  even  in 
avenging  me  of  mine  enemies,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  gen- 
eration of  them  that  hate  me. — Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec. 
100,  par.  5. 

This  is  but  a  fair  specimen  of  Bays'  garbling  in  the 
quotations  he  has  made  upDn  this  subject. 

As  further  evidence  that  the  intention  was  not  hostility 
towards  Missouri,  we  invite  attention  to  their  act  in  send- 
ing a  delegation  to  the  governor  of  Missouri  soon  after 
entering  the  state  to  acquaint  him  with  their  purpose. 
The  following  is  from  the  autobiography  of  P.  P.  Pratt: 

Arriving  .in  the  Allred  settlement,  near  Salt  River,  Missouri, 
where  thefe  was  a  large  branch  of  the  church,  the  camp  reste-d 
a  little,  and  dispatched  Elder  Orson  Hyde  and  myself  to  Jeffer- 
son City,  to  request  of  His  Excellency,  Governor  Daniel 
Dunklin,  a  sufficient  military  force,  with  orders  to  reinstate 
the  exiles,  and  protect  them  in  the  possession  of  their  homes 
in  Jackson  County. —Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  471. 

June  22,  1834,  Cornelius  G-illium,  sheriff  of  Clay  county, 
Missouri,  visited  the  camp  of  the  Saints,  and  subsequently 
made  the  following  statement: 


198  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

"Being  a  citizen  of  Clay  county,  and  knowing  that  there  is 
considerable  excitement  amongst  the  people  thereof;  and  also 
knowing  that  different  reports  are  arriving  almost  hourly:  and 
being  requested  by  the  Hon.  «J.  F.  Ryland,  to  meet  the  Mor- 
mons under  arms,  and  obtain  from  the  leaders  thereof  the 
correctness  of  the  various  reports  in  circulation  — the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  their  present  movements,  and  their 
views  generally  regarding  the  difficulties  existing  between 
them  and  Jackson  count}7— I  did,  in  company  with  other 
gentlemen,  call  upon  the  said  leaders  of  the  Mormons,  at  their 
camp,  in  Clay  county;  and  now  give  to  the  people  of  Clay 
county  their  written  statement,  containing  the  substance  of 
what  passed  between  us.  (Signed) 

4 'CORNELIUS  GILLIUM." 

PROPOSITIONS,    &C.    OF   THE    "MORMONS." 

"Being  called  upon  by  the  above  named  gentlemen,  at  our 
camp,  in  Clay  county,  to  ascertain  from  the  leaders  of  our 
men,  our  intentions,  views,  and  designs,  in  approaching  this 
county  in  the  manner  that  we  have:  we  therefore,  the  more 
cheerfully  comply  with  their  request,  because  we  are  called 
upon  by  gentlemen  of  good  feelings,  and  who  are  disposed  for 
peace  and  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  existing 
between  us  and  the  people  of  Jackson  county.  The  reports  of 
our  intentions  are  various,  and  have  gone  abroad  in  a  light 
calculated  to  arouse  the  feelings  of  almost  every  man.  — For 
instance,  one  report  is,  that  we  intend  to  demolish  the  printing 
office  in  Liberty;  another  report  is,  that  we  intend  crossing  the 
Missouri  River  on  Sunday  next,  and  falling  upon  women  and 
children,  and  slaying  them;  another  is,  that  our  men  were 
employed  to  perform  this  expedition,  being  taken  from 
manufacturing  establishments  in  the  East  that  had*  closed 
business;  also,  that  we  carried  a  flag  bearing  PEACE  on  one 
side  and  WAR  OR  BLOOD  on  the  other;  and  various  others  too 
numerous  to  mention.  All  of  which,  a  plain  declaration  of  our 
intentions,  from  under  our  own  hands,  will  show  are  not 
correct.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  our  intention  to  commit 
hostilities  against  any  man  or  set  of  men.  It  is.  not  our 
intention  to  injure  any  man's  person  or  property,  except  in 
defending  ourselves.  Our  flag  has  been  exhibited  to  the  above 
gentlemen,  who  will  be  able  to  describe  it.  Our  men  were  not 
taken  from  any  manufacturing  establishment.  It  is  our 
intention  to  go  back  upon  our  lands  in  Jackson  county,  by 
order  of  the  Executive  of  the  State,  if  possible.  We  have 
brought  our  arms  with  us  for  the  purpose  of  self-defense,  as 
it  is  well  known  to  almost  every  man  of  the  State  that  we 
have  every  reason  to  put  ourselves  in  an  attitude  of  defense, 
considering  the  abuse  we  have  suffered  in  Jackson  county. 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.  BAYS.  199 

We  are  anxious  for  a  settlement  of  the  difficulties  existing 
between  us,  upon  honorable  and  constitutional  principles. 
We  are  willing  for  twelve  disinterested  men,  six  to  be  chosen 
by  each  party,  and  these  men  shall  say  what  the  possessions 
of  those  men  are  worth  who  cannot  live  with  us  in  the  county; 
and  they  shall  have  their  money  in  one  year;  and  none  of  the 
Mormons  shall  enter  that  county  to  reside  until  the  money  is 
paid.  The  damages  that  we  have  sustained  in  consequence  of 
being  driven  away,  shall  also  be  left  to  the  above  twelve  men. 
Or  they  may  all  live  in  the  county,  if  they  choose,  and  we  will 
never  molest  them  if  they  will  let  us  alone  and  permit  us  to 
enjoy  our  rights.  We  want  to  live  in  peace  with  all  men, 
and  equal  rights  is  all  we  ask.  We  wish  to  become 
permanent  citizens  of  this  State,  and  wish  to  bear  our  pro- 
portion in  support  of  the  Government,  and  to  be  protected  by 
its  laws.  If  the  above  proposals  are  complied  with,  we  are 
willing  to  give  security  on  our  part;  and  we  shall  want  the 
same  of  the  people  of  Jackson  county  for  the  performance  of 
this  agreement.  We  do  not  wish  to  settle  down  in  a  body, 
except  where  we  can  purchase  the  lands  with  money:  for  to 
take  possession  by  conquest  or  the  shedding  of  blood,  is  entirely 
foreign  to  our  feelings.  The  shedding  of  blood  we  shall  not  be 
guilty  of,  until  all  just  and  honorable  means  among  men  prove 
insufficient  to  restore  peace." — Evening  and  Morning  Star,  vol. 
2,  p.  351. 

The  above  document  was  signed  by  the  following  per- 
sons: Joseph  Smith,  Jun.,  F.  G-.  Williams,  Lyman  Wight, 
Roger  Orton,  Orson  Hyde,  and  J.  S.  Carter. 

The  premises  of  Elder  Bays  being  thus  completely 
demolished,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  follow  him  to  his 
conclusions. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  had  the  churches  in  the  east 
responded  as  it  was  in  their  power  to  do,  the  rights  of  the 
chief  mobocrats  in  Jackson  county  could  have  been  pur- 
chased, and  thus  the  walls  of  the  enemy  broken,  their 
tower  thrown  down,  and  their  watchmen  scattered.  They 
were  promised  success  only  upon  conditions  of  obedience. 
Here  it  will  be  necessary  to  record  another  instance  of 
Bays'  duplicity.  In  order  to  form  a  conclusion  of  a  failure 
in  the  revelation,  he  gives  a  garbled  quotation,  leaving  out 
the  conditions  upon  which  the  Saints  were  to  prevail,  a?  d 


200  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

making  it  to  read  as  though  it  were  an  unconditional 
promise.  As  Bays  quotes  it: 

'  Behold  they  shall,  for  I  have  decreed  it,  begin  to  prevail 
against  mine  enemies  from  this  very  hour,  .  .  .  and  they  shall 
never  cease  to  prevail  until  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  [the 
United  States  with  the  rest]  are  subdued  under  my  feet. — 
Page  402. 

As  it  is: 

Behold,  they  shall,  for  I  have  decreed  it,  begin  to  prevail 
against  mine  enemies  from  this  very  hour,  and  by  hearkening 
to  observe  all  the  words  which  I,  the  Lord  their  God,  shall 
speak  unto  them,  they  shall  never  cease  to  prevail  until  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  are  subdued  under  my  feet;  and  the 
earth  is  given  unto  the  saints,  to  possess  it  forever  and  ever. — 
Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  100,  par.  2. 

The  instances  given  in  this  -chapter  ought  to  warn  the 
reader  that  it  is  unsafe  to  believe  anything  Bays  says,  or 
to  accept  any  quotation  he  makes  without  further  investi- 
gation. The  quotation  given  above  continues  by  giving 
the  consequences  of  failure  to  keep  the  commandments  of 
God.  It  reads  as  follows: 

But  inasmuch  as  they  keep  not  my  commandments,  and 
hearken  not  to  observe  all  my  words,  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  shall  prevail  against  them,  for  they  were  set  to  be  a  light 
unto  the  world,  and  to  be  the  saviors  of  men;  and  inasmuch  as 
they  are  not  the  saviors  of  men,  they  are  as  salt  that  has  lost  its 
savor,  and  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing  but  to  be  cast  out 
and  trodden  under  foot  of  men. 

The  Fishing  River  revelation  was  consistent,  then,  in  the 
following: 

Verily  I  say  unto  you,  who  have  assembled  yourselves 
together  th.at  you  ma}r  learn  my  will  concerning  the  redemp- 
tion of  mine  afflicted  people: — 

Behold,  I  say  unto  you,  Were  it  not  for  the  transgressions  of 
my  people,  speaking  concerning  the  church  and  not  indi- 
viduals, they  might  have  been  redeemed  even  now;  but, 
behold,  they  have  not  learned  to  be  obedient  to  the  things 
which  I  require  at  their  hands,  but  are  full  of  all  manner  of 
evil,  and  do  not  impart  of  their  substance,  as  becometh  saints, 
to  the  poor  and  afflicted  among  them,  and  are  not  united 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.   BAYS.  201 

according  to  the  union  required  by  the  law  of  the  celestial 
kingdom;  and  Zipn  cannot  be  built  up  unless  it  is  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  law  of  the  celestial  kingdom,  otherwise  I  cannot 
receive  her  unto  myself;  and  my  people  must  needs  be 
chastened  until  they  learn  obedience,  if  it  must  needs  be,  by 
the  things  which  they  suffer. 

I  speak  not  concerning  those  who  are  appointed  to  lead  my 
people,  who  are  the  first  elders  of  my  church,  for  they  are  not 
all  under  this  condemnation;  but  I  speak  concerning  my 
churches  abroad;  there  are  many  who  will  say,  Where  is  their 
God?  Behold,  he  will  deliver  in  time  of  trouble;  otherwise  we 
will  not  go  up  unto  Zion,  and  will  keep  our  moneys.  There- 
fore, in  consequence  of  the  transgression  of  my  people,  it  is 
expedient  in  me  that  mine  elders  should  wait  for  a  little  season 
for  the  redemption  of  Zion,  that  they  themselves  may  be  pre- 
pared, and  that  my  people  may  be  taught  more  perfectl}7,  and 
have  experience,  and  know  more  perfectly,  concerning  their 
duty,  and  the  things  which  I  require  at  their  hands;  and  this 
cannot  be  brought  to  pass  until  mine  elders  are  endowed  with 
power  from  on  high;  for,  behold,  1  have  prepared  a  great 
endowment  and  blessing  to  be  poured  out  upon  them,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  faithful,  and  continue  in  humility  before  me; 
therefore,  it  is  expedient  in  me  that  mine  elders  should  wait 
for  a  little  season,  for  the  redemption  of  Zion;  for,  behold,  I  do 
not  require  at  their  hands  to  fight  the  battles  of  Zion;  for,  as  I 
said  in  a  former  commandment,  even  so  will  I  fulfill,  I  will 
fight  your  battles. — Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  102,  pars.  1-3. 

Bays  goes  on  with  his  account  of  the  Missouri  troubles 
until  the  expulsion  of  the  Saints  in  1839.  It  is  only  neces- 
sary to  say  that  he  continues  his  policy  of  misstating  facts 
and  garbling  quotations.  Certainly  the  reader  has  seen 
examples  enough  to  render  it  useless  to  follow  him  further. 
We  are  willing  to  carefully  examine  any  honest  criticism 
of  the  faith  we  advocate,  but  we  confess  to  indignant 
disgust  at  such  trickery  as  is  found  in  these — Haggard's 
"children  of  Providence." 

That  there  may  have  been  mistakes  made  by  Joseph 
Smith  and  others  connected  with  him  we  do  not  deny. 
None  of  them  ever  claimed  to  be  infallible,  but  the  work 
as  a  whole  is  evidence  that  a  divine  mind  was  leading  in 
the  fundamental  principles  and  policies.  Without  it  they 
could  not  have  accomplished  what  they  did.  Their  work 


202  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

today  needs  no  apology.  It  only  needs  to  be  understood. 
That  there  are  defects  we  concede,  but  it  is  wonderful  to 
us  that  there  are  no  more.  We  think  it  possible  that  the 
Saints  in  Missouri  retaliated  in  some  instances  upon  their 
persecutors,  which  from  a  Christian  standpoint  was 
wrong;  but  when  we  read  of  the  indignities  heaped  upon 
them,  though  far  removed  from  the  scenes  our  blood  boils 
with  indignation,  and  we  wonder  how  they  stood  it  as  well 
as  they  did.  We  think  it  possible,  under  the  extreme 
provocation,  that  some  of  Zion's  Camp  were  ready  to  take 
summary  vengeance,  but  were  overruled.  Surely  there 
was  a  restraining  hand  wiser  and  more  powerful  than  that 
governed  by  human  feeling  and  human  impulse. 


CHAPTER  10. 

Prophecy  on  Rebellion  —  Bays'  Conclusions — Conclusions 
Examined  -Letter  to  N.  E.  Seaton— Affidavit  of  N.  D.  Earl  — 
Statement  of  John  Hyde -Letter  to  Calhoun— Nation's  Woe 
—  Saints'  Loyalty  —  Missouri's  Disgrace  —  Quincy  Argus  — 
Democratic  Association — Western  Messenger — General  Ewing's 
Order— Cause  of  "Injured  Innocence"— Petition  to  President 
Hayes — Patriot— Revelation  of  1832  — Evidence  of  Fulfillment 
— Conclusion. 

BAYS  next  writes  under  the  caption  of  "Prophecies  of 
Joseph  Smith — Were  they  Fulfilled?"  He  begins  by  an 
examination  of  the  following  revelation: 

"Verily  thus  saith  the  Lord,  concerning  the  wars  that  will 
shortly  come  to  pass,  beginning  at  the  rebellion  of  South 
Carolina,  which  will  eventually  terminate  in  the  death  and 
misery  of  many  souls.  The  days  will  come  that  war  will  be 
poured  out  upon  all  nations,  beginning  at  that  place;  for 
behold,  the  Southern  States  shall  be  divided  against  the  North- 
ern States,  and  the  Southern  States  will  call  on  other  nations, 
even  the  nation  of  Great  Britain,  as  it  is  called,  and  they  shall 
also  call  upon  other  nations,  in  order  to  defend  themselves 
against  other  nations;  and  thus  war  shall  be  poured  out  upon 
all  nations.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  after  many  days,  slaves 
shall  rise  up  against  their  Masters,  who  shall  be  marshalled  and 
disciplined  for  war:  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  also,  that  the 
remnants  who  are  left  of  the  land  will  marshall  themselves,  and 
shall  become  exceeding  angry,  and  shall  vex  the  Gentiles  with 
a  sore  vexation;  and  thus,  with  the  sword,  and  by  bloodshed, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  shall  mourn;  and  with  famine,  and 
plague,  and  earthquakes,  and  the  thunder  of  Heaven,  and  the 
fierce  and  vivid  lightning  also,  shall  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  be  made  to  feel  the  wrath,  and  indignation  and  chasten- 
ing hand  of  an  Almighty  God,  until  the  consumption  decreed, 
hath  made  a  full  end  of  all  nations;  that  the  cry  of  the  Saints, 
and  of  the  blood  of  the  Saints,  shall  cease  to  come  up  into  the 
ours  of  the  Lord  of  Sabbaoth,  from  the  earth,  to  be  avenged  of 
i  heir  enemies.  Wherefore,  stand  ye  in  holy  places,  and  be  not 
moved,  until  the  day  of  the  Lord  come;  for  behold  it  cometh 
quickly,  saith  the  Lord.  Amen."—  Pearl  of  Great  Price, 
nugie  35. 

203 


204  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

Mr.  Bays  thinks  that  this  revelation  was  prompted  by 
the  then  existing  trouble  in  South  Carolina,  consequent 
upon  "the  threatened  dissolution  of  the  American  Union 
by  the  famous  nullification  act  of  the  legislature  of  South 
Carolina,  in  November,  1832;"  and  hence  as  it  had  not  its 
fulfillment  during  that  trouble  it  was  a  failure.  To  a  cer- 
tain extent  this  trouble  may  have  been  the  remote  cause 
that  produced  the  revelation.  The  mind  of  the  prophet 
may  have  been  exercised  by  the  unrest  and  trouble  in  the 
country  consequent  upon  the  attitude  of  South  Carolina, 
and  in  this  condition  of  anxiety  he  may  have  made  inquiry 
as  to  final  results.  In  answer  to  this  inquiry  he  may  have 
received  the  above  communication.  To  those  acquainted 
with  the  situation  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  state 
that  the  trouble  in  South  Carolina  from  1823-1833  was  not 
settled  until  the  conclusion  of  the  Civil  War.  The  Com- 
promise Tariff  Act  of  Henry  Clay,  adopted  in  1833,  averted 
hostilities  for  a  time;  but  the  same  issue  denominated, 
li  States  Rights"  existed  until  it  culminated  in  the  War  of 
the  Rebellion.  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  article  Nullification, 
expresses  the  condition.  It  is  as  follows: 

Gen.  Jackson's  measures,  his  proclamation,  just  described, 
and  his  special  message  to  congress  of  Jan  ,  1833,  on  the  same 
subject,  turned  the  tide  so  far  in  favor  of  his  views  of  con- 
stitutional law  that  the  other  Southern  States,  as  well  as  the 
Northern,  decidedly  approved  of  his  course.  South  Carolina, 
propitiated  by  a  modification  of  the  tariff — Mr.  Clay's  Com- 
promise, so  called  — abandoned  the  ordinance  of  nullification, 
and  the  heresy  slept  a  \yhile  to  awake  again,  revived  and  more 
intense,  after  a  generation. 

It  may  be  possible,  as  Mr.  Bays  suggests,  that  some  of 
the  indorsers  of  the  revelation,  expecting  a  more  speedy 
consummation,  despaired,  and  thought  the  prediction  a 
failure.  This  would  be  but  natural,  but  the  wonderful 
part  of  it  is  that  the  leading  features  of  this  revelation 
were  subsequently  fulfilled,  notwithstanding  the  scoffs  of 
its  enemies  and  the  fears  of  its  friends. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  205 

This  revelation  was  published  before  its  fulfillment.  We 
quote  it  from  a  publication  now  before  us,  called  "The 
Pearl  of  Great  Price,"  published  by  F.  D.  Richards,  in 
Liverpool,  England,  1851. 

From  this  revelation  Elder  Bays  deduces  the  following 
ten  propositions: 

1.  South  Carolina  should  rebel,  (had  rebelled,   in  fact)  an.d 
war  between  the  States  should  follow. 

2.  The  Southern  States  should  call  upon  Great   Britain   for 
assistance. 

3.  Great  Britain  should  call  upon  other  nations,  in  order  to 
defend  herself  against  other  nations,  and  thus  become  seriously 
involved  in  war. 

4.  This  action  should  result  in   the  formation   of  alliances, 
both  offensive  and  defensive,  between  all  the  great  powers  of 
earth. 

5.  And    wars  should   thus  be   poured    out  upon   all  nations, 
beginning  at  the  rebellion  of  South  Carolina. 

6.  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  after  many  dajrs  that  slaves 
shall  rise  up  against  their  masters,  who  should  be  marshaled 
and  disciplined  for  war." 

7.  "The  remnants  who  are  left  of  the  land,"  were  to  become 
"exceeding  angry  and  vex  the  Gentiles  with  a  sore  vexation." 

8.  During   these   perilous   times   the  Saints  should  stand  in 
holy  places, — that  is,  in  Zion  (Independence)  and  her  "stakes," 
(other  places  of  safety— See  Doc.  and  Cov.,  pages  153  and  206) 
and  should  not  be  moved. 

9.  "And  thus  with  the  sword  and  by  bloodshed,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  earth  shall  mourn;"  and  famine,  pleague  and  earth- 
quakes,   and   the   thunder   of    heaven,    and    fierce    and   vivid 
lightning  should  never  cease  "until  the  consumption  decreed'1 
of  God  had  made  a  "full  end  of  all  nations." 

10.  The  final  consummation  of  all  things  was  at  hand,  when 
Christ   should   "come  quickly,"   in   power  and  great  glory.— 
Page  428. 

One  who  will  compare  these  deductions  with  the  docu- 
ment will  discover  that  they  are  not  all  legitimate. 

Taking  them  up  in  their  order  we  will  briefly  consider 
them: 

Proposition  1  is  correct  except  the  parenthetical  state- 
ment. South  Carolina  had  not  rebelled,  but  had  only 
threatened  to  do  so.  That  she  did  subsequently  rebel  is 


206  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

admitted  by  Elder  Bays.  This  was  not  until  twenty-eight 
years  after  the  prediction  was  made,  and  nine  years  after 
the  publication  was  issued  from  which  we  quote. 

Proposition  2  is  a  proper  deduction,  and  was  exactly 
fulfilled  by  the  Southern  Confederacy  during  the  War  of 
the  Rebellion,  as  Mr.  Bays  admits. 

Proposition  3  is  unwarranted.  The  antecedent  of  the 
pronoun  they  in  the  clause  "they  shall  also  call  upon  other 
nations,"  cannot  be  Great  Britain.  Great  Britain  is  not 
they,  but  she  or  it.  To  make  out  this  deduction  he  changes 
the  number  of  the  pronoun,  and  where  the  document  says, 
1  'In  order  to  defend  themselves,"  he  says  "in  order  to  defend 
herself."  Evidently  the  pronoun  they  has  for  its  antecedent 
the  "other  nations"  upon  whom  the  Southern  States  would 
call,  and  not  Great  Britain  alone. 

The  following  will  show  conclusively  that  the  Southern 
States  did  call  upon  other  nations: 

The  public  questions  arising  out  of  our  foreign  relations  were 
too  important  to  be  overlooked.  At  the  end  of  the  first  year  of  the 
war  the  Confederate  States  had  been  recognized  by  the  leading 
governments  of  Europe  as  a  belligerent  power.  This  continued 
unchanged  to  the  close.  Mr.  Mason  became  our  representative 
in  London,  Mr.  Slidell  in  Paris,  Mr.  Rost  in  Spain,  and  Mr. 
Mann  in  Belgium.  They  performed  with  energy  and  skill  the 
positions,  but  were  unsuccessful  in  obtaining  our  recognition 
as  an  independent  power.  .  .  . 

But,  when  a  portion  of  the  States  withdrew  from  the  com- 
pact and  formed  a  new  one  under  the  name  of  the  Confederate 
States,  they  had  made  such  organic  changes  in  their  Constitu- 
tion as  to  require  official  notice  in  compliance  with  the  usages 
of  nations. 

For  this  purpose  the  Provisional  Government  took  early 
measures  for  sending  to  Europe  Commissioners  charged  with 
the  duty  of  visiting  the  capitals  of  the  different  powers  and 
making  arrangements  for  the  opening  of  more  formal  diplo- 
matic intercourse.  Prior,  however,  to  the  arrival  abroad  of 
these  Commissioners,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had 
addressed  communications  to  the  different  Cabinets  of  Europe, 
in  which  it  assumed  the  attitude  of  being  sovereign  over  the 
Confederate  States,  and  alleged  that  these  independent  States 
\vere  in  rebellion  against  the  remaining  States  of  the  Union, 


REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  207 

and  threatened  Europe  with  manifestations  of  its  displeasure  if 
•  it  should  treat  the  Confederate  States  as  having  an  independent 
existence.  It  soon  became  known  that  these  pretensions  were 
not  considered  abroad  to  be  as  absurd  as  they  were  known  to  be 
at  home;  nor  had  Europe  yet  learned  what  reliance  was  to  be 
placed  in  the  official  statements  of  the  Cabinet  at  Washington. 
The  delegation  of  power  granted  by  the  States  to  the  General 
Government  to  represent  them  in  foreign  intercourse  had  led 
European  nations  into  the  grave  error  of  supposing  that  their 
separate  sovereignty  and  independence  had  been  merged  into 
one  common  sovereignty,  and  had  ceased  to  have  a  distinct 
existence.  Under  the  influence  of  this  error,  which  all  appeals 
to  reason  and  historical  fact  were  vainly  used  to  dispel,  our 
Commissioners  were  met  by  the  declaration  that  foreign  Gov- 
ernments could  not  assume  to  judge  between  the  conflicting 
representations  of  the  two  parties  as  to  the  true  nature  of  their 
previous  relations.  The  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and 
France  accordingly  signified  their  determination  to  confine 
themselves  to  recognizing  the  self-evident  fact  of  the  existence 
of  a  war,  and  to  maintain  a  strict  neutrality  during  its 
progress.  Some  of  the  other  powers  of  Europe  pursued  the 
same  course  of  policy,  and  it  became  apparent  that  by  some 
understanding,  express  or  tacit,  Europe  had  decided  to  leave 
the  initiative  in  all  action  touching  the  contest  on  this  conti- 
nent to  the  two  powrers  just  named,  who  were  recognized  to 
have  the  largest  interests  involved,  both  by  reason  of  proximity 
to  and  of  the  extent  of  intimacy  of  their  commercial  relations 
with  the  States  engaged  in  war.  — The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Con- 
federate Government,  by  Jefferson  Davis,  vol.  2,  pp.  307-309. 

The  expression,  "And  they  shall  also  call  upon  other 
nations,  in  order  to  defend  themselves  against  other 
nations,"  does  not  necessarily  connect  their  doing  so  with 
the  war  between  the  states,  but  is  simply  a  declaration 
that  sometime  in  the  future  other  nations  would  adopt  the 
policy  adopted  by  the  Southern  States  in  calling  upon  other 
nations  in  order  to  defend  themselves,  and  thus,  or  by  the 
adoption  of  this  policy,  "War  shall  be  poured  out  upon  all 
nations." 

That  such  a  policy  has  in  a  measure  been  adopted,  and 
may  be  more  extensively  adopted  in  the  future,  none  can 
deny.  There  is  nothing  in  the  document  by  which  we  may 
infer  that  the  war  poured  out  upon  all  nations  would  be 


208  REPLY  TO  D.   H.  BAYS. 

the  direct  result  of  the  war  between  the  states.  Many  of 
the  nations  have  been  involved  in  war  since,  and  the  spirit 
of  war  is  just  now  quite  prevalent,  and  also  the  policy  of 
nations  acting  in  concert  against  other  nations  is  quite 
popular. 

His  fourth  proposition  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  basis  in 
the  document,  and  hence  we  pass  it  without  further 
comment. 

Strike  out  the  word  tlms  from  his  fifth  proposition,  and 
the  deduction  would  be  legitimate;  but  in  the  connection 
in  which  he  uses  it  this  word  is  misleading. 

Proposition  six  is  a  correct  statement,  and  had  a  literal 
fulfillment.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  slaves  were 
not  employed  in  active  service,  but  "after  many  days" 
they  rose  up  against  their  masters,  and  were  marshalled 
and  disciplined  for  war.  Mr.  Bays  raises  a  technical  point 
here  and  says: 

Latter  Day  Saints  claim,  however,  that  the  proposition  which 
says  "slaves  shall  rise  up  against  their  masters,"  was  also  ful- 
filled. But  this  is  not  true.  The  negroes  of  the  South  did  not 
rebel  against  their  masters;  neither  were  they  marshaled  and 
disciplined  for  war,  as  the  prophecy  declares.  After  the 
famous  emancipation  proclamation  of  Abraham  Lincoln  there 
were  no  more  "slaves"  in  the  South  — they  were  all  now  freed 
men.  These  freed  men  rushed  to  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  were  enlisted  into  the  Union  army.  But  no  slave 
ever  rose  against  his  master,  and  no  slave  was  marshaled  and 
disciplined  for  war. — Page  429. 

This  is  simply  a  quibble,  and  a  manifest  disposition  to 
resort  to  trifling  technicalities.  He  is  not  technically 
right,  however.  Men  were  held  in  bondage  after  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation.  It  did  not  make  them  free. 
It  was  a  war  measure  proclaimed  by  the  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  army  to  meet  a  military  emergency.  It  raised 
an  issue  that  was  not  settled  until  the  close  of  the  war. 
Had  the  fortunes  of  war  decided  in  favor  of  the  other  side, 
they  would  have  continued  to  be  slaves.  From  the  stand- 


REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  209 

point  of  civil  law  they  were  legally  slaves,  for  the  law 
permitted  it.  When  the  military  emergency,  for  which 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation  was  issued,  had  passed, 
they  could  have  been  legally  held  in  bondage,  bad  not 
measures  been  taken  to  enact  the  principle  contained  in 
the  Proclamation  into  law.  This  was  admitted  by  the 
advocates  of  freedom,  as  evidenced  by  the  recognized 
necessity  for  the  adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  was  pro- 
claimed to  be  in  force  December  18,  1865.  There  is 
another  consideration  which  has  perhaps  escaped  Elder 
B  \ys'  attention;  viz.,  that  the  effect  of  the  Emancipation 
Proclamation  was  not  general,  but  confined  to  states  and 
parts  of  states  in  actual  rebellion  against  the  United 
States.  The  Proclamation  in  itself  in  defining  where  it 
was  to  be  in  fome  names  the  following: 

Arkansas,  Texas,  Louisiana  (except  the  parishes  of  St.  Ber- 
nard, Plaquemines,  Jefferson,  St.  John,  St.  Charles,  St.  James, 
Ascension,  Assumption,  Terre  Bonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Mary, 
St.  Martin,  and  Orleans,  including  the  city  of  New  Orleans), 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  Florida,  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North 
Carolina,  and  Virginia  (except  the  forty-eight  counties  desig- 
nated as  West  Virginia,  and  also  the  counties  of  Berkeley, 
Accomac,  Northampton,  Elizabeth  City,  York,  Princess  Ann, 
and  Norfolk,  including  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth), 
and  which  excepted  parts  are  for  the  present  left  precisely  as 
if  this  proclamation  were  not  issued. 

It  will  be  seen  that  parts  of  Louisiana  and  Virginia  are 
expressly  excluded  from  the  effects  of  this  Proclamation, 
while  the  slave  states  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  Missouri, 
Tennessee,  and  Kentucky,  are  not  included. 

Generally  speaking,  we  say  the  slaves  were  freed  by  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  because  it  was  the  cause 
leading  up  to  this  result,  but  when  we  accommodate  Bays 
by  resorting  to  technicalities,  he  is  as  usual  wrong.  So 
long  as  the  war  lasted,  the  slaves  were  not  actually  free, 
but  in  that  struggle  they  fought  against  their  masters 


210  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

•when  their  own  freedom  was  an  issue  that  was  trembling 
in  the  balance. 

Mr.  John  S.  C.  Abbott,  one  of  the  leading  historians  of 
the  day,  in  his  "History  of  the  Civil  War  in  America,"  in 
describing  the  battle  of  Milliken's  Bend,  says: 

Here  the  slaves  and  their  masters  were  brought  face  to  face 
in  the  death-gripe,  and  the  masters  bit  the  dust. — Vol.  2,  p.  291. 

So  this  part  of  the  prediction  was  literally  fulfilled,  and 
Bays'  quibble  is  only  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  his 
position. 

Proposition  7  is  correctly  stated.  We  submit  that  the 
words,  "the  remnants  who  are  left  of  the  land,"  could  be 
more  properly  applied  to  the  American  Indians,  the 
remnants  left  of  the  original  inhabitants,  than  to  any  one 
else.  That  they  did  on  many  occasions  since  then  become 
"exceeding  angry,  and  vex  the  Gentiles  with  a  sore  vexa- 
tion," none  can  deny. 

On  this  point  we  present  the  evidence  and  argument 
presented  by  Elder  W.  W.  Blair  in  his  answer  to  William 
Sheldon  in  1889,  as  follows: 

And  "the  remnants  who  are  left  of  the  land,  [the  Indians], 
will  marshal  themselves,  and  shall  become  exceeding  angry, 
and  shall  vex  the  Gentiles  with  a  sore  vexation."  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  has  been  done.  The  Indians  did  "marshal 
themselves"  against  the  whites  as  early  as  in  August  18G2,  and 
they  have  been  waging  war  against  them  from  time  to  time 
until  the  present.  The  massacre  in  Minnesota,  which  took 
place  August,  1862,  was  a  terribly  cruel  and  heart-rending 
affair.  Two  thousand  persons  were  barbarously  slaughtered  in 
a  few  hours.  Nameless  outrages  were  perpetrated;  and  the 
losses  sustained,  pecuniarily,  by  the  government  and  by 
individuals,  amounted  to  over  $25,000,000.  A  writer  has 
graphically  said: 

"From  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  on  the  rock-bound 
coast  of  New  England,  in  the  winter  of  1620,  until  their 
descendants  had  passed  the  center  of  the  continent,  and 
reached  the  lovely  plains  of  Minnesota,  no  exhibition  of  Indian 
character  had  so  afflicted  and  appalled  the  soul  of  humanity, 
as  the  fearful  and  deliberate  massacre  perpetrated  by.them  in 
August,  1862.  .  .  .  The  blow  fell  like  a  storm  of  thunderbolts 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  211 

from  the  clear,  bright  heavens.  The  storm  of  fierce,  savage 
murder,  in  its  most  horrid  and  frightful  forms,  rolled  on.  Day 
passed  and  night  came,  until  the  sad  catalogue  reached  the 
fearful  number  of  two  thousand  human  victims,  from  the  gray- 
haired  sire  to  the  helpless  infant  of  a  day,  who  lay  mangled  and 
dead  on  the  ensanguined  field.  ...  In  two  days  the  whole 
work  of  murder  was  done,  with  here  and  there  exceptional 
cases  in  different  settlements.  And,  during  these  two  days,  a 
population  of  thirty  thousand,  scattered  over  some  eight  coun- 
ties, on  the  western  borders  of  the  State,  on  foot,  on  horseback, 
with  teams  of  oxen  and  horses,  under  the  momentum  of  the 
panic  thus  created,  were  rushing  wildly  and  frantically  over 
the  prairies  to  places  of  safety." — Indian  Massacres. 

The  Indians  "marshaled  themselves"  as  foreshown  in  the 
prophecy,  — no  whites  having  a  hand  in  that  matter.  The  bad 
treatment  which  they  had  received  from  the  whites  — the 
Indian  agents  and  traders  in  particular  — had  much  to  do  in 
causing  these  outrages,— it  made  them  "exceeding  angry," — 
yet,  as  said  before,  the  whites  had  nothing  to  do  in  marshaling 
them,  or  directing  them  in  their  sanguinary  work. 

These  Indian  wars  are  costly  as  well  as  cruel;  and  hence,  in 
more  ways  than  one,  are  they  "a  sore  vexation"  to  our  tax- 
burdened  nation.  It  has  been  reported  that  for  every  Indian 
captured  and  killed  during  some  of  the  Indian  wars  since  1862, 
it  has  cost  the  whites  the  lives  of  nine  white  men,  and  $5,000,- 
000  in  money.  This  may  be  a  slight  exaggeration,  yet  it  is 
probably  not  far  from  the  truth.  The  enormous  expense,  with 
the  loss  of  human  life,  and  the  various  perplexities  connected 
with  these  wars,  and  the  whole  Indian  question,  are  sources  of 
"sore  vexation"  to  the  whites,  and  from  which  there  are  no 
prospects  of  speedy  and  permanent  relief.  — Joseph  the  Seer, 
pp.  187,  188. 

Proposition  8  is  a  misstatement  of  the  case.  The  reve- 
lation does  not  say,  "During  these  perilous  times  the 
Saints  should  stand  in  holy  places."  It  says,  ''Wherefore, 
stand  ye  in  holy  places,"  partaking  of  the  nature  of  a  com- 
mand and  not  of  a  prediction.  Whether  the  Saints  did  or 
did  not  obey  that  command  will  not  affect  the  prophetic 
feacures  of  the  document. 

Proposition  9  is  quite  fairly  stated,  but  a  clearer  under- 
standing can  be  had  by  quoting  the  language  of  the  revela- 
tion itself,  which  is  as  follows: 

With  the  sword,  and  by  bloodshed,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  shall  mourn;  and  with  famine,  and  plague,  and  earth- 


212  REPLY  TO   D.  H.  BAYS. 

quakes,  and  the  thunder  of  Heaven,  and  the  fierce  and  vivid 
lightning  also,  shall  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  be  made  to 
feei  the  wrath,  and  indignation  and  chastening  hand  of  an 
Almighty  God,  until  the  consumption  decreed,  hath  made  a 
full  end  of  all  nations;  that  the  cry  of  the  Saints,  and  of  the 
blood  of  the  Saints,  shall  cease  to  come  up  into  the  ears  of  the 
Lord  of  Sabbaoth,  from  the  earth,  to  be  avenged  of  their 
enemies.—  Pearl  of  Or  eat  Price,  p.  35. 

One  peculiar  feature  of  this  prophecy  is  that  at  its  date 
the  blood  of  the  Saints  of  this  generation  had  not  been 
shed.  Though  there  had  been  some  persecution,  there 
was  no  possible  means  whereby  Joseph  Smith  by  his 
unaided  foresight  could  have  determined  that  many, 
including  himself,  would  seal  their  testimony  with  their 
lives,  and  yet  such  was  the  case.  In  about  one  year 
afterward,  violent  persecution  began  in  Jackson  county, 
Missouri,  and  the  Saints  were  robbed,  plundered,  and 
driven  from  their  homes.  Fleeing  from  their  persecutors 
there,  they  had  a  short  season  of  comparative  peace;  but 
in  1837  persecution  again  stretched  forth  her  relentless 
and  bloody  hands,  resulting  in  1838  in  the  expulsion  of  the 
Saints  from  the  state  after  having  suffered  more  'than 
tongue  or  pen  can  describe,  and  many  being  slain.  So 
great  and  so  manifest  was  the  injustice  with  which  they 
were  treated,  that  even  Bays,  notwithstanding  his  bitter- 
ness, condemns  it  as  follows: 

While  the  Mormons,  and  more  especially  the  leaders,  were 
doubtless  responsible  for  a  liberal  share  of  these  troubles,  yet 
for  this  flagrant  outrage  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  free 
American  citizens,  there  cannot  be  offered  even  the  shadow  of 
excuse.  The  plea  that  the  Mormons  had  violated  the  laws  of 
the  State  cannot  be  offered  in  justification  of  so  grave  an 
offense  against  the  cause  of  humanity,  and  the  peace  and 
dignity  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  If  the  Mormons  had  violated 
the  laws  of  the  State,  as  their  enemies  charged,  why  not  try 
them  for  their  offenses,  and  if  found  guilty,  punish  them 
according  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  they  are  charged  with 
having  violated?  To  say  they  could  not  be  convicted,  if  guilty, 
cannot  be  entered  as  a  plea  in  abatement  of  the  offense,  for  cer- 
tainly if  the  State  had  the  power  to  expel  the  entire  Mormon 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  213 

citizenship  from  the  State,  it  must  have  possessed  the  power  to 
enforce  its  laws  against  the  individual  transgressor. 

It  matters  not  what  their  peculiarities,  or  how  absurd  may 
appear  the  tenets  of  their  religion,  they  were  American  citizens, 
amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  as  such  should  have 
been  protected  in  their  rights  of  citizenship.  A  great  nation,  a 
sovereign  State  and  a  large-minded,  liberty-loving  people  can 
well  afford  to  deal  justly,  even  with  "Mormons."  The  scenes 
of  Independence  and  Carthage  can  never  again  be  repeated  in 
the  United  States,  and  well  for  the  honor  of  a  great  nation  that 
it  is  so.— Pages  896,  397. 

The  massacre  of  Haun's  Mill  was  one  of  the  most  bar- 
barous acts  ever  known  in  history.  Of  this  Bancroft 
says: 

While  the  men  were  at  their  work  out  of  doors,  the  women  in 
the  house,  and  the  children  playing  about  the  yards,  the  crack 
of  a  hundred  rifles  was  heard,  and  before  the  firing  ceased, 
eighteen  of  these  unoffending  people  were  stretched  dead  upon 
the  ground,  while  many  more  were  wounded.  I  will  not  enter 
upon  the  sickening  details,  which  are  copiousand  fully  proven; 
suffice  it  to  say,  that  never  in  savage  or  other  warfare  was  there 
perpetrated  an  act  more  dastardly  and  brutal.  Indeed,  it  was 
openly  avowed  by  the  men  of  Missouri  that  it  was  no  worse  to 
shoot  a  Mormon  than  to  shoot  an  Indian,  and  killing  Indians 
was  no  worse  than  killing  wild  beasts. — Bancroft's  History  of 
Utah,  p.  128. 

Nor  did  the  bloody  work  end  here.  A  few  years  later  in 
Illinois,  whither  the  Saints  had  fled  from  Missouri,  they 
were  again  hunted  like  wild  beasts,  much  trouble  ensued, 
many  lives  were  lost,  including  those  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum 
Smith,  who  were  murdered  in  cold  blood  by  a  brutal  mob, 
not  in  Carthage  jail,  as  is  generally  supposed,  but  while 
waiting  for  trial  in  the  sheriff's  parlor.  The  perpetrators 
of  this  crime,  or  of  the  many  crimes  committed  against 
the  Saints,  were  never  brought  to  justice.  Of  the  trial  of 
the  assassins  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith,  Governor  Ford 
writes  as  follows: 

During  the  progress  of  these  trials,  the  judge  was  compelled 
to  permit  the  court-house  to  be  filled  and  surrounded  by  armed 
bands,  who  attended  court  to  browbeat  and  overawe  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  The  judge  himself  was  in  a  duress,  and 


214  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

informed  me  that  he  did  not  consider  his  life  secure  any  part 
of  the  time.  The  consequence  was,  that  the  crowd  had  every- 
thing their  own  way;  the  lawyers  for  the  defence  defended 
their  clients  by  a  long  and  elaborate  attack  on  the  governor; 
the  armed  mob  stamped  with  their  feet  and  yelled  their  appro- 
bation at  every  sarcastic  and  smart  thing  that  was  said;  and 
the  judge  was  not  only  forced  to  hear  it,  but  to  lend  it  a  kind 
of  approval.  Josiah  Lamborne  was  attorney  for  the  prosecu- 
tion; and  O.  H.  Browning,  O.  C.  Skinner,  Calvin  A.  Warren, 
and  William  A.  Richardson,  were  for  the  defence. — Ford's 
History  of  Illinois,  p.  368. 

Surely  the  blood  of  the  Saints  cried  unto  the  Lord  for 
vengeance,  and  when  justice  can  be  found  nowhere  else, 
will  he  not  avenge? 

Proposition  10  is  overdrawn.  The  language  of  the 
revelation  is  simply  this:  "Wherefore,  stand  ye  in  holy 
places,  and  be  not  moved,  until  the  day  of  the  Lord  come; 
for  behold  it  cometh  quickly,  saith  the  Lord.  Amen." 
Elder  Bays'  comment  is  as  follows: 

The  final  consummation  of  all  things  does  not  appear  immi- 
nent, and  the  Lord  has  not  appeared  to  take  vengeance  upon 
the  ungodly;  and  things  move  along  about  as  of  yore,  and  thus 
we  record  failure  No.  8. — Pages  430,  431. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  prophecy  that  justifies  this  con- 
clusion. The  language  is  no  stronger  with  regard  to  the 
near  approach  of  Christ  than  was  used  over  seventeen  hun- 
dred years  before  by  John  the  Revelator.  In  closing  the 
book  of  his  prophecies  he  said:  "He  which  testifieth  these 
things  saith,  Surely  I  come  quickly:  Amen.  Even  so, 
come,  Lord  Jesus."  If  the  statement  of  Joseph  Smith  is 
to  be  pronounced  a  failure  because  it  predicts  the  near 
approach  of  the  Christ,  then  to  be  consistent  we  should 
write  failure  opposite  the  name  of  John  who  wrote  the 
same  over  seventeen  hundred  years  before. 

On  January  4,  1833,  Joseph  Smith  wrote  to  Mr.  N.  E. 
Seaton,  editor  of  a  newspaper  in  Rochester,  New  York,  as 
follows: 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  215 

And  now  I  am  prepared  to  say  by  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ,  that  not  many  years  shall  pass  away,  before  the  United 
States  shall  present  such  a  scene  of  bloodshed  as  has  not  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  our  nation;  pestilence,  hail,  famine, 
and  earthquakes  will  sweep  the  wicked  of  this  generation  from 
off  the  face  of  the  land,  to  open  and  prepare  the  way  for  the 
return  of  the  lost  tribes  of  Israel  from  the  north  country.  The 
people  of  the  Lord,  those  who  have  complied  with  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  new  covenant,  have  already  commenced  gathering 
together  to  Zion,  which  is  in  the  State  of  Missouri;  therefore  I 
declare  unto  you  the  warning  which  the  Lord  has  commanded 
me  to  declare  unto  this  generation,  remembering  that  the  eyes 
of  my  Maker  are  upon  me,  and  that  to  him  I  am  accountable 
for  every  word  I  say,  wishing  nothing  worse  to  my  fellow  men 
than  their  eternal  salvation;  therefore  "fear  God  and  give  glory 
to  him  for  the  hour  of  his  judgment  is  come."— Repent  ye, 
repent  ye,  and  embrace  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  flee  to 
Zion  before  the  overflowing  scourge  overtake  you,  for  there  are 
those  now  living  upon  the  earth  whose  eyes  shall  not  be  closed 
in  death  unt.il  they  see  all  these  things,  which  I  have  spoken, 
fulfilled.  Remember  these  things;  call  upon  the  Lord  while  he 
is  near,  and  seek  him  while  he  may  be  found,  is  the  exhortation 
)f  your  unworthy  servant,  JOSEPH  SMITH,  JR. 

—  Times  and  Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  707. 

(Those  who  care  to  notice  further  the  garbling  propensi- 
ties of  Bays  will  find  his  purported  quotation  of  the  above 
on  page  432  of  his  book.) 

Though  the  difficulty  in  South  Carolina  was  not  settled 
at  the  date  of  this  letter,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  author 
was  not  expecting  an  immediate  fulfillment.  He  says: 
1  'Not  many  years  shall  pass  away,  before  the  United 
States  shall  present  such  a  scene  of  bloodshed  as  has  not  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  our  nation."  The  fulfillment  of 
this  is  so  complete  and  well  known  that  we  need  to  cite  no 
'evidence  in  confirmation. 

The  following  affidavit  shows  that  Joseph  Smith  con- 
tinued, after  the  temporary  settlement  of  the  South  Caro- 
lina difficulty,  to  assert  that  such  a  war  would  occur: 

I,  N.  D.  Earl,  of  the  County  of  Decatur,  and  State  of  Iowa, 
being  first  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say: 

That  in  the  year  1833  or  1834,  I  cannot  remember  which,  but 
^ink  it  was  in  1834,  I  heard  Joseph  Smith,  the  then  President 


216  REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  while  jour- 
neying from  Kirtland,  Ohio,  to  Far  West,  Missouri,  and 
somewhere  between  Indianapolis  and  Newton,  Indiana,  foretell 
and  preach  the  rebellion,  and  that  the  slaves  would  be  set  at 
liberty,  and  armed  and  equipped  for  war  and  so  on.  I  cannot 
give  just  his  words,  but  I  give  the  substance  of  them.  Also  that 
I  went  with  a  number  of  youngsters  to  Newton,  or  Frankfort, 
south-east  of  Layfayette,  Indiana,  shortly  after  the  time  above 
referred  to,  and  there  I  heard  a  certain  lawyer  question  Joseph 
Smith  above  referred  to  about  the  rebellion,  and  he,  Joseph 
Smith,  preached  the  same  things  again.  I  think  the  name  of 
the  lawyer  above  referred  was  Gregory,  but  as  to  that  I  am  not 
certain. 

I  further  state  that  I  am  not  now  and  never  have  been,  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
nor  any  other.  N.  D.  EARL. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  N.  D.  Earl  before  me  at  Lamoni, 
Iowa,  on  this  the  26th  day  of  February,  1884. 

[L.  S.]  ASA  S.  COCHRAN,  Notary  Public. 

Elder  Smith  repeated  in  brief  his  statement  found  in  the 
revelation  of  December  25,  1832,  as  late  as  April  6,  1843. 

John  Hyde,  Jim.,  who  published  a  work  against  the 
church  in  1857,  relates  a  statement  made  by  Joseph 
Smith,  April  6,  1843,  as  follows: 

I  prophesy  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  God,  that  the  commence- 
ment of  the  difficulties  which  will  cause  much  bloodshed, 
previous  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  will  be  in  South 
Carolina  (it  probably  may  arise  through  the  slave  question); 
this  a  voice  declared  to  me,  while  I  was  praying  earnestly  on 
the  subject,  December  25th,  1832. — Mormonism,  by  Elder  Hyde, 
p.  174. 

Joseph  would  of  course  be  praying  very  earnestly  on  the 
subject  about  that  time  in  consequence  of  the  agitated 
condition  of  the  public  mind  regarding  the  disturbance  in 
South  Carolina,  and  the  Lord  revealed  to  him  that  "not 
many  years"  hence  there  would  be  a  scene  of  bloodshed 
unparallelled  in  the  history  of  our  country,  and  that  South 
Carolina  would  lead  in  the  trouble.  This  was  true,  as 
many  thousands  of  mourning  households  can  attest. 

Mr.  Bays  next  quotes  an  extract  from  a  letter  by  Joseph 
Smith  to  John  C.  Calhoun,  under  date  of  January  2,  1844. 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS.  217 

The  occasion  of  the  correspondence  was  this:  Mr.  Calhoun 
was  understood  to  be  an  aspirant  for  the  office  of  President 
of  the  United  States.  Joseph  Smith  wrote  him  to  know 
what  his  rule  of  action  would  be  relative  to  the  Saints  who 
had  been  plundered  and  robbed  of  their  rights  and 
property  in  the  state  of  Missouri,  to  which  Mr.  Calhoun 
replied: 

Candour  compels  me  to  repeat,  what  I  said  to  you  at  Wash- 
ington; that  according  to  my  views  the  case  does  not  come 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  government,  which  is 
one  of  limited  and  specific  powers. 

To  this  Joseph  Smith  made  the  reply  which  is  the 
subject  of  this  controversy.  It  was  in  part  as  follows: 

If  the  general  government  has  no  power  to  reinstate  expelled 
citizens  to  their  rights,  there  is  a  monstrous  hypocrite  fed  and 
fostered  from  the  hard  earnings  of  the  people!  A  real  'bull 
beggar'  upheld  by  sycophants;  and,  although  you  may  wink  to 
the  priests  to  stigmatize;— wheedle  the  drunkards  to  swear, 
and  raise  the  hue  and  cry  of  imposter  false  prophet,  .  .  .  yet 
remember,  if  the  Latter  Day  Saints  are  not  restored  to  all  their 
rights,  and  paid  for  all  their  losses,  according  to  the  known 
rules  of  justice  and  judgment,  reciprocation  and  common 
honesty  among  men,  that  God  will  come  out  of  his  hiding 
place  and  vex  this  nation  with  a  sore  vexation — yea,  the 
consuming  wrath  of  an  offended  God  shall  smoke  through  the 
nation,  with  as  much  distress  and  woe,  as  independence  has 
blazed  through  with  pleasure  and  delight.  Where  is  the 
strength  of  government?  Where  is  the  patriotism  of  a  Wash- 
ington, a  Warren,  and  Adams?  and  where  is  a  spark  from  the 
watch  fire  of  "70,  by  which  one  candle  might  be  lit,  that  would 
glimmer  upon  the  confines  of  democracy?  Well  may  it  be  said 
that  one  man  is  not  a  state;  nor  one  state  the  nation.  In  the 
days  of  General  Jackson,  when  France  refused  the  first  instal- 
ment for  spoliations,  there  was  power,  force,  and  honor  enough 
to  resent  injustice  and  insult,  and  the  money  came:  and  shall 
Missouri,  filled  with  negro  drivers,  and  white  men  stealers,  go 
'unwhipped  of  justice,'  for  ten  fold  greater  sins  than  France? 
No!  verily  no!— While  I  have  powers  of  body  and  mind;  while 
water  runs  and  grass  grows;  while  virtue  is  lovely,  and  vice 
hateful;  and  while  a  stone  points  out  a  sacred  spot  where  a 
fragment  of  American  liberty  once  was;  I  or  my  posterity  will 
plead  the  cause  of  injured  innocence,  until  Missouri  makes 
atonement  for  all  her  sins -or  sinks  disgraced,  degraded  and 


218  REPLY   TO    I).   H.    BAYS. 

damned  to  hell  —  'where  the  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched.' — Time*  <md  X^/.v^.v,  vol.  5,  page  895. 

Bays  comments  as  follows: 

The  fulfillment  of  this  remarkable  prophecy  is  made  con- 
tingent upon  the  action  of  the  General  Government.  If  the 
United  States  should  lake  the  matter  in  hand,  and  reinstate  the 
expelled  Latter  Day  Saints  to  their  possessions  in  Missouri, 
the  nation  should  escape  the  pending  calamity.  But  if  the 
Federal  Government  failed  to  do  this,  then  "the  consuming 
wrath  of  an  offended  God"  should  smoke  through  the  nation  with 
as  much  distress  and  woe  as  "independence  had  ever  blazed 
through  with  pleasure  and  delight." 

The  government  did  not  even  attempt  to  restore  the  Saints, 
and  yet  the  consuming  wrath  of  God  failed  to  smoke  through 
the  nation.  The  old  flag  still  floats  to  the  breezes  of  every 
clime,  and  the  nation  has  not  yet  been  "consumed."  But 
instead,  she  stands  today  as  one  of  the  greatest  powers  on  the 
earth. 

So  much,  then,  for  this  great  flourish  of  trumpets  by  the 
Modern  Seer. 

Besides  this  national  woe  -  this  consuming  wrath  -  there  was 
also  to  be  a  special  dispensation  of  divine  wrath  visited  upon 
the  State  of  Missouri.  This  great  State,  "filled  with  negro 
drivers  and  white  men  stealers,"  should  not  go  "unwhipped  of 
justice"  for  her  great  sin  in  thrusting  the  Saints  from  their 
homes.  "No!  verily  no!"  She,  too,  must  suffer  for  her  indi- 
vidual transgressions.  She  must  make  atonement  for  driving 
an  innocent  people  from  their  homes.  Either  Joseph  or  his 
posterity  should  continue  to  plead  the  cause  of  an  injured  peo- 
ple till  Missouri  had  made  ample  restitution,  or  till  she  should 
sink  "disgraced,  degraded,  and  damned  to  hell." 

In  the  following  June  Joseph  was  killed  by  a  mob  in  Carthage 
jail,  and  could,  therefore,  no  longer  plead  the  cause  of  his  peo- 
ple. Thus  sixteen  years  passed  away,  and  no  voice  was  heard 
to  plead  the  cause  of  the  exiled  Saints.  At  the  end  of  that  time, 
however,  or  in  1860,  the  eldest  son  of  the  murdered  Seer  took 
his  father's  place  at  the  head  of  the  Reorganized  Church,  but 
still  no  pleading  voice  was  heard.  And  up  to  this  date  the  son 
has  never  been  known  to  petition  either  the  State  of  Missouri 
or  the  General  Government  to  restore  the  Mormon  people  to 
their  lost  inheritances  in  Zion. 

It  is  likewise  a  well-known  fact  that  neither  the  State 
of  Missouri  nor  the  Federal  Government  has  ever  put  forth 
the  slightest  effort  to  make  the  restitution  this  vengeful 
revelation  demands,  and  }Tet  they  both  stand  as  living  witnesses 
of  the  vanity  and  presumption  of  the  prophet,  and  the  absolute 
unreliability  of  his  prophetic  utterances. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  219 

The  United  States  of  America  stands  today  as  the  peer  of  the 
most  advanced  nation  on  the  globe,  while  Missouri  takes  high 
rank  among  the  sisterhood  of  States,  and  has  been  neither  dis- 
graced, degraded,  nor  "damned  to  hell,"  as  the  vindictive 
prophet  declared  she  should  be,  but,  in  her  imperial  majesty, 
she  stands  erect  to  pronounce  the  prophecy  a  failure,  and  its 
author  a  fraud.  — Pages  435-437. 

Whatever  may  be  said  regarding  this  remarkable 
prophecy  being  contingent  upon  the  action  of  the 
General  Government,  it  is  true  that  it  had  a  most 
remarkable  fulfillment.  Government  did  fail  to  reinstate 
the  expelled  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  there  was  in  a  very 
few  years  as  much  distress  and  ivoe  smoking  through  the 
land  as  independence  had  blazed  through  with  pleasure 
and  delight.  For  years  the  very  life  of  our  nation 
trembled  in  the  balance,  and  the  struggle  for  life  was  a 
desperate  and  bitter  one.  Yes,  Elder  Bays,  the  govern- 
ment still  exists,  and  the  flag  still  floats,  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  prediction  to  the  contrary,  and  your  inti- 
mation that  the  fulfillment  of  the  prediction  requires  the 
overthrow  of  the  government  is  purely  voluntary.  There 
is  no  intimation  of  the  kind. 

The  sacred  books  of  the  church  teach  that  this  govern- 
ment was  founded  by  the  direct  inspiration  of  God,  and 
hence,  though  God  may  chasten  it  for  transgression,  he 
will  preserve  the  government  until  full  opportunity  is 
given  it  to  accomplish  its  possibilities.  In  a  revelation 
given  through  Joseph  Smith  in  December,  1833,  occurs 
the  following: 

And  again  I  say  unto  you,  Those  who  have  been  scattered  by 
their  enemies,  it  is  my  will  that  they  should  continue  to  impor- 
tune for  redress,  and  redemption,  by  the  hands  of  those  who 
are  placed  as  rulers,  a«d  are  in  authority  over  you,  according 
to  the  laws  and  Constitution  of  the  people  which  I  have 
suffered  to  be  established,  and  should  be  maintained  for  the 
rights  and  protection  of  all  flesh,  according  to  just  and  holy 
principles,  that  every  man  may  act  in  doctrine,  and  principle 
pertaining  to  futurity,  according  to  the  moral  agency  which  I 
have  given  unto  them,  that  every  man  may  be  accountable  for 


220  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

his  own  sins  in  the  day  of  judgment.  Therefore,  it  is  not  right 
that  any  man  should  be  in  bondage  one  to  another.  And  for 
this  purpose  have  I  established  the  Constitution  of  this  land, 
by  the  hands  of  wise  men  whom  I  raised  up  unto  this  very 
purpose,  and  redeemed  the  land  by  the  shedding  of  blood. — 
Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  98,  par.  10. 

Nor  does  the  prediction  intimate  that  Missouri  should 
lose  her  identity  as  a  state,  as  Mr.  Bays  intimates.  That 
the  state  was  disgraced  by  her  treatment  of  the  Saints  is, 
however,  a  reality.  The  Quincy,  Illinois,  Argus,  for 
March  16,  1839,  stated  among  other  things  the  following: 

We  give  in  to-day's  paper  the  details  of  the  recent  bloody 
tragedy  acted  in  Missouri — the  details  of  a  scene  of  terror  and 
blood  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  modern,  and  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  in  ancient  history— a  tragedy  of  so 
deep  and  fearful,  and  absorbing  interest,  that  the  very  life- 
blood  of  the  heart  is  chilled  at  the  simple  contemplation.  We 
are  prompted  to  ask  ourselves  if  it  be  really  truel  that  we  are 
living  in  an  enlightened,  a  humane  and  civili/ed  age  — in  an  age 
and  quarter  of  the  world  boasting  of  its  progress  in  every  thing 
good,  and  great,  and  honorable,  and  virtuous,  and  high-minded 

in  a  country  of  which,  as  American  citi/ens,  we  could  be 
proud — whether  we  are  living  under  a  Constitution  and  Laws, 
or  have  not  rather  returned  to  the  ruthless  times  of  the  stern 
At  ilia — to  the  times  of  the  fiery  Hun,  when  the  sword  and  flame 
ravaged  the  fair  fields  of  Italy  and  Europe,  and  the  darkest 
passions  held  full  revel  in  all  the  revolting  scenes  of  unchecked 
brutality  and  unbridled  desire? 

We  have  no  language  sufficiently  strong  for  the  expression  of 
our  indignation  and  shame  at  the  recent  transaction  in  a  sister 
State— and  that  State  MISSOURI- a  State  of  which  we  had  long 
been  proud,  alike  for  her  men  and  history,  but  now  so  fallen 
that  we  could  wish  her  star  stricken  out  from  the  bright  con- 
stellation of  the  Union.  We  say  we  know  of  no  language 
sufficiently  strong  for  the  expression  of  our  shame  and  abhor- 
rence of  her  recent  conduct.  She  has  written  her  own  character 
in  letters  of  Hood  -  and  stained  it  by  acts  of  merciless  cruelty  and 
brutality  that  the  waters  of  ages  cannot  efface. — Persecution  of 
the  Saints,  pp.  178-180. 

The  Democratic  Association,  of  Quincy,  Illinois,  on 
February  28,  1839,  after  inviting  other  citizens  to  meet 
with  it,  adopted  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  rights  of  conscience  as  natural 


REPLY   TO   D.  H.  BAYS.  221 

and  inalienable,  and  the  most  sacred  guaranteed  by  the  consti- 
tution of  our  free  government. 

Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  acts  of  all  mobs  as  flagrant 
violations  of  law,  and  those  who  compose  them,  individually 
responsible,  both  to  the  laws  of  £!od  or  man  for  every  depreda- 
tion committed  upon  the  property,  rights,  or  life  of  any  citizen. 

Resolved,  That  the  inhabitants  upon  the  Western  Frontier  of 
the  State  of  Missouri  in  their  late  persecutions  of  .the  class  of 
people  denominated  Mormons,  have  violated  the  sacred  rights 
of  conscience,  and  every  law  of  justice  and  humanity. 

Resolved,  That  the  Gov.  of  Missouri  in  refusing  protection  to 
this  class  of  people  when  pressed  upon  by  an  heartless  mob, 
and  turning  upon  them  a  band  of  unprincipled  Militia,  with 
orders  encouraging  their  extermination,  has  brought  a  lasting 
disgrace  upon  the  State  over  which  he  presides. — Persecution 
of  the  Saints,  pp.  190,  191. 

The  Western  Messenger,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  about  Novem- 
ber or  December,  1840,  contained  the  following: 

Reader!  Let  not  the  word  Mormon  repel  you!  Think  not 
that  yoa  have  no  interest  in  the  cruelties  perpetrated  on  this 
poor  people!  Read,  we  pray  you,  the  history  of  this  persecuted 
community;  examine  the  detailed  facts  of  these  attrocities; 
reflect  upon  the  hallowed  principles  and  usages  trampled  under 
foot  by  ruffians;  bring  before  your  mind  the  violations  of  all 
law,  human  and  divine,  of  all  right,  natural  and  civil,  of  all 
ties  of  society  and  humanity,  of  all  duties  of  justice,  honor, 
honesty,  and  mercy,  committed  by  so  called'  freemen  and 
Christians  — and  then  speak  out,  speak  out  for  prostrate  law, 
for  liberty  disgraced,  for  outraged  man,  for  heaven  insulted; 

"Loud  as  a  summer  thunderbolt  shall  waken 
A  People's  voice." 

We  speak  strongly,  for  we  feel  strongly;  and  we  wish  to 
attract  attention  to  a  tragedy  of  almost  unequalled  horror, 
which  has  been  unblushingly  enacted  in  a  state  of  this  Union. 
Its  history  should  be  trumpeted  abroad  until  the  indignant 
rebuke  of  the  whole  land  compels  the  authors,  abettors  and 
tolerators  of  these  wrongs,  to  make  the  small  return  now  in 
-their  power,  for  their  aggravated  injustice.  Life  cannot  be 
restored  to  the  murdered,  nor  health  to  the  broken  down  in 
body  and  soul,  nor  peace  to  the  bereaved;  but  the  spoils  on 
which  robbers  are  now  fattening,  can  be  repaid;  the  loss  of  the 
destitute  can  be  made  up;  the  captive  can  be  freed,  and,  until 
by  legislative  acts  she  makes  redress—  Missouri  is  disgraced! 

It  seems  like  some  horrid  dream,  that  these  enormities,  which 
Nicholas  would  have  shrunk  from  inflicting  on  the  Poles,  have 
been  deliberately  committed  in  an  age  of  peace,  in  a  land  of 


222  REPLY  TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

laws  and  freedom,  upon  our  own  brethren.*  Is  it  actually 
true,  that  citizens,  peaceable,  industrious,  temperate,  orderly 
citizens,  have  been  driven  from  their  property,  their  houses 
burned,  the  furniture  broken  and  scattered,  their  crops  laid 
waste,  their  stores  plundered,  their  cattle  killed,  their  horses 
stolen,  their  clothes  stripped  from  them,  and  themselves 
expelled  under  threats  of  instant  death?  Is  it  true  that  men 
have  been  tarred  and  feathered,  whipt  till-  they  were  raw  from 
head  to  foot,  till  their  bowels  gushed  out,  that  their  skulls  have 
been  knocked  in,  and  brains  scattered  with  musket-buts,  that 
they  have  been  shot  down  while  crying  for  quarter,  shot  down 
unarmed  and  defenceless  like  hogs  in  a  pen?  Is  it  true  that 
sick  women  have  been  driven  from  burning  houses  at  midnight, 
on  the  snowy  prairies,  where  they  have  given  birth  to  children 
on  the  frozen  ground,  that  they  have  forded  rivers  with  help- 
less infants  in  their  arms,  fleeing  from  heartless  pursuers,  that 
they  have  been  insulted  when  their  natural  protectors  were  hid 
from  the  murderers,  that  they  have  been  violated  by  the  guards 
appointed  for  their  defence?  And  were  the  guilty  instigators 
and  executioners  of  these  massacres,  arsons  and  rapes,  really 
men  of  standing,  ministers  of  the  gospel,  judges,  senators,  mili- 
tary officers,  and  the  Governor  of  the  state?  Were  not  the  evi- 
dence on  which  the  narrative  of  each  one  of  these  cruelties  rests 
incontrovertible,  no  one  could  conceive  that  such  fiend-like  acts 
had  actually  been  wrought  by  beings  in  human  shape.  Would, 
that,  for  the  honor  of  our  nature,  they  could  be  discredited. 
Our  statement  is  strictly,  unexaggeratedly  true.  It  is  only  TOO 

MEAGER,    TOO   FEEBLE.    .    .    . 

These,  it  may  be  said,  were  the  acts  of  unauthorized  mobs, 
against  whom  the  militia  of  the  state  had  been  called  out. 
True!  But  when  after  months,  we  may  say  years,  of  suffering 
from  similar  outrages,  harrassed  by  anxieties,  goaded  by 
wrongs,  and  under  the  advice  of  authorities,  civil  and  military, 
these  poor  fellows  deserted  by  the  militia  guard,  unprotected 
by  the  state,  did  at  last  defend  their  houses  from  pillage,  their 
children  and  wives  from  abuse,  themselves  from  murder  — then 
was  the  cry  of  "Mormon  War"  raised;  and  Gov.  Boggs,  to 
his  lasting  infamy,  sent  out  his  order  for  exterminating  these 
citizens  of  Missouri,  whom  it  was  his  duty  under  oath  to  save. 
In  his  order  of  Oct.  27,  he  says: 

"The  Mormons  must  be  treated  as  enemies,  and  must  be  extermi- 
nated or  driven  from  the  state,  if  necessary,  for  the  public  good." 

The  Mormons  had  only  defended  themselves  against  infuri- 
ated and  lawless  rioters:  so  soon  as  Gen.  Lucas  arrived  and 
presented  the  Governor's  orders,  they  submitted  to  the  authori- 

*This  was  not  a  Mormon  paper,  and  the  word  brethren  was  not  used 
in  the  sense  of  church  fellowship. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  223 


ties  of  the  state.     They  gave  up  their  arms,  and   were   made 
prisoners.   .  .  . 

And  thus,  during  the  greatest  cold  of  the  last  winter,  were 
men,  women  and  children,  aged,  sick  and  helpless,  driven  out 
from  shelter,  and,  half  clothed,  unfed,  robbed  of  teams  and 
horses  even,  forced  to  make  their  way  as  they  could  to  other 
states.  One  more  picture  we  must  present  in  order  to  give  a 
glimpse  of  the  horrors  thus  permitted  by  a  State  Executive  — 
thus  authorized  and  commanded  by  the  highest .  power  of 
Missouri.  We  take  the  account  given  under  oath  by  Lyman 
Wight,  of  "a  few  facts  concerning  his  family.  (While  he  was 
in  jail.") 

"His  wife  was  confined  on  the  3rd  of  November,  whilst 
Cornelius  C.  Gilliam,  with  one  hundred  painted  men  sur- 
rounded the  house,  screeching  and  hallooing  in  the  attitude 
of  Dealware  Indians;  and  it  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  that 
the  militia  officers  could  keep  them  out  of  the  house.  In  this 
situation  the  family  remained,  threatened  day  by  day  that  they 
must  leave  the  country  or  be  exterminated.  Accordingly, 
when  her  babe  was  eight  days  old,  she  was  informed  she  could 
stay  no  longer,  that  she  must  not  only  leave  the  county  but  the 
state;  that  she  need  not  flatter  herself  that  she  would  ever  see 
her  husband  again,  for  if  they  could  not  find  law  to  kill  him, 
they  would  kill  him  without  law.  She  was  stripped  of  her  bed 
and  bedding,  and  of  her  household  furniture,  then  placed  in  an 
open  waggon  with  six  helpless  children,  to  make  the  best  shift 
she  could  to  get  out  of  the  state.  The  last  news  received  from 
her,  she  was  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  river  in  a  tent, 
depending  on  the  charity  of  the  people  for  her  support.  This 
is  the  fifth  time  that  I  and  my  family  have  been  unlawfully 
driven  from  house  and  home." 

Now  Let  every  one  on  reading  this  tale  of  horror,  speak  out 
fully,  fearlessly.  Had  the  Mormons  been  pirates,  blood-stained, 
had  they  been  .Indians,  girdled  with  scalps,  they  would  have 
deserved  better  treatment.  Let  the  unsupported  accusations 
brought  against  them  be  true,  and  yet  the  conduct  of  their 
plunderers  and  murderers  was  utterly  without  a  palliation  or 
excuse.  Before  the  face  of  heaven,  and  in  the  sight  of  men, 
such  acts  are  devilish. 

What,  in  a  word,  were  the  causes  of  the  madness  of  these 
mobs?  The  Mormons  were  deluded,  obstinate,  zealous,  exclu-  - 
sive  in  their  faith.  They  used  the  vairue,  prophetic  denuncia- 
tions of  an  enthusiastic  sect.  They  retaliated  the  reproaches 
heaped  upon  them  by  religious  opponents.  This,  we  believe, 
was  the  great  exciting  cause.  Their  first  persecutions  were 
attacks  on  their  opinions,  and  ridicule  of  their  absurdity. 

Again,  there  were  suspicions  against  the  sincerity  of  their 
leading  men.— They  were  thought  to  be  speculators  on  the 


224  REPLY   TO   D.   H.  BAYS. 

credulity  of  the  ignorant.  Blind  prejudice  multiplied  evil 
suspicions,  enmity  misconstrued  natural  acts,  slander  swelled 
trities  into  monstrous  wrongs,  idle  curiosity,  greedy  of  alarm, 
and  eager  to  gossip,  circulated  rumors.  Now  add  that  they 
were  a  larger  and  growing  community,  allied  together  both  by 
necessity  and  choice,  and  withal  prosperous,  and  we  have  an 
explanation  of  the  fear,  jealousy,  envy  and  hatred  felt  against 
them;  an  explanation,  but  no  justification.  The  same  elements 
wer«  active  and  fierce  in  these  Missouri  outrages,  which  have 
kindled  the  faggot,  and  bared  the  sword,  and  opened  the 
dungeon  in  all  times.  These  elements  were  bigotry,  ignorance, 
mnic.  And  when  we  talk  of  living  in  an  age  of  enlightenment 
liberty,  and  law,  let  us  recollect  with  shame  the  burning  of  the 
convent  at  Charlestown,  the  absurd  humbug  of  Maria  Monk, 
and  the  countless  wrongs  which  other  mobs,  for  as  slight  pre- 
texts, have  wrought  in  almost  every  State  in  the  Union.  The 
blaze  of  these  other  disgraceful  proceedings,  is  lost,  however, 
in  the  hot  glare  of  this  infernal  outbreak.  —  Times  and  Seasons, 
vol.  2,  pp.  235-238. 

The  punishment  of  Missouri  was  indeed  severe  during 
the  war.  Not  only  did  the  contention  of  hostile  armies  on 
her  soil  devastate  her,  but  the  lawless  desperado  upon 
either  side,  who  used  the  issues  of  war  simply  as  a  pretext 
for  crime,  robbed,  plundered,  and  murdered,  until  some  of 
the  very  counties  in  which  the  Saints  had  been  wronged, 
were  a  scene  of  carnage  and  ruin.  So  great  was  the  trou- 
ble and  so  intricate  the  complications  in  Jackson  and  some 
of  the  bordering  counties,  that  in  the  opinion  of  General 
Ewing  it  became  necessary  to  expel  all  citizens  from  cer- 
tain localities.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  his 
famous  "General  Order  No.  11": 

HEADQUARTERS  DISTRICT  OF  THE  BORDER,  } 
KANSAS  CITY,  Mo.,  August  25,  1803.        J 
(General  Order  No.  11.) 

First. — All  persons  living  in  Cass,  Jackson  and  Bates 
Counties,  Missouri,  and  in  that  part  of  Vernon  included  in 
this  district,  except  those  living  within  one  mile  of  the  limits 
of  Independence,  Hickman's  Mills,  Pleasant  Hill  and  Harrison- 
ville,  and  except  those  in  that  part  of  Kaw  Township,  Jackson 
County,  .  north  of  Brush  Creek  and  west  of  the  Big  Blue, 
embracing  Kansas  City  and  Westport,  are  hereby  ordered  to 
remove  from  their  present  places  of  residence  within  fifteen 
days  from  the  date  hereof. 


REPLY   TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  225 

Those  who,  within  that  time,  establish  their  loyalty  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  military  station 
nearest  their  present  place  of  residence,  will  receive  from  him 
certificates  stating  the  fact  of  their  loyalty,  and  the  names  of 
the  witnesses  by  whom  it  can  be  shown.  All  who  receive  such 
certificate  will  be  permitted  to  remove  to  any  military  station 
in  this  district,  or  to  any  part  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  except 
the  counties  on  the  eastern  border's  of  tlje  State.  'All  others 
shall  remove  out  of  this  district.  Officers  commanding 
companies  and  detachments  serving  in  the  counties  named, 
will  see  that  this  paragraph  is  promptly  obeyed. 

Second. — All  grain  and  hay  in  the  field,  or  under  shelter,  in 
the  district  from  which  the  inhabitants  are  required  to  remove 
within  reach  of  military  stations,  after  the  9th  day  of  Septem- 
ber next,  will  be  taken  to  such  stations  and  turned  over  to  the 
proper  officer  there,  and  report  of  the  amount  so  turned  over 
made  to  district  headquarters,  specifying  the  names  of  all  loyal 
owners  and  the  amount  of  such  produce  taken  from  them. 
All  grain  and  hay  found  in  such  district  after  the  9th  day  of 
September  next,  not  convenient  to  such  stations,  will  be 
destroyed.  —  History  of  Caldwell  and  Livingston  Counties, 
'Missouri,  1886,  p.  51. 

Thus  it  seems  that  citizens  had  to  flee  from  their  homes, 
and  suffer  the  destruction  of  their  property  in  some  of  the 
very  localities  from  whence  the  Saints  had  been  driven 
about  thirty- three  years  before.  Even  Bays  says: 

The  scenes  of  Independence  and  Carthage  can  never  again  be 
repeated  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is  well  for  the  honor  of  a 
great  nation  that  it  is  so. 

Then  the  scenes  of  Independence  and  Carthage  were  dis- 
honorable, and  what  is  more  disgraceful  than  dishonor ? 

Mr.  Bays  finds  fault  because  the  son  of  Joseph  Smith 
has  not  petitioned  the  state  of  Missouri  or  the  General 
Government  to  restore  the  Saints  to  their  inheritances, 
and  argues  that  .therefore  he  has  not  plead  the  cause  of 
injured  innocence.  The  cause  for  which  these  people 
suffered  has  been  plead  by  Joseph  Smith  and  his  associates 
in  the  Reorganization,  until  it  is  honored  and  respected 
wherever  known.  Even  in  Missouri  the  cause  is  repre- 
sented, and  the  waste  places  are  being  rebuilt,  while  the 
tongue  that  advocated  the  measures  and  policies  of  those 


226  REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS. 

who  despoiled  the  homes  of  our  fathers  has  long  since  been 
hushed  in  death,  and  none  dare  to  defend.  The  following 
is  very  significant  as  showing  that  the  idea  that  God's 
judgments  were  specially  visiting  this  nation  has 
impressed  itself  upon  the  minds  of  many. 

%  "PHILADELPHIA,  September  16.  [1878.] 
"To  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  United  States:  The 
conviction  grows  deeper  with  thoughtful  men  that  'the  Lord 
has  a  controversy  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land.'  On  the 
very  threshhold,  as  we  had  flattered  ourselves,  of  returning 
prosperity,  we  find  the  whole  country  plunged  into  mourning, 
and  the  wished  for  revival  of  business  seriously  dela3Ted  by  the 
alarming  pestilence  which  ravages  our  southern  borders.  This 
is  but  the  last  in  a  long  series  of  calamities  which  reaches  back 
to  the  very  beginning  of  our  civil  war.  That  these  facts  attest 
the  displeasure  of  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  world  against  this 
nation  we  are  profoundly  convinced,  and  also  that  our  only 
hope  of  escape  from  still  sorer  retributions  lies  in  a  diligent 
inquiry  into  the  causes  of  God's  anger,  and  in  speedy  and 
heartfelt  repentance  and  reformation.  That  the  mind  of  the 
people  may  be  turned  to  these  momentous  considerations,  and 
that  united  prayer  for  the  grace  of  repentance  and  for  the 
removal  of  his  heavy  judgments  may  ascend  to  the  Father  of 
Mercies  through  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  we,  citizens 
of  Philadelphia  and  vicinity,  respectfully  ask  you  to  appoint,  in 
your  wisdom,  an  early  and  convenient  day  to  be  observed  by 
the  whole  nation  as  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation  and  prayer. 

JOHN  Y.  DOBBINS,  President  M.  E.  Preachers' 

Meeting. 

NATHAN  B.  DURELL,  Secretary  of  the  Preach- 
ers' Meeting. 
R.  JOHNS,  Moderator  Presbyterian  Ministerial 

Association. 
CHARLES     BROWN,    Secretary     Presbyterian 

Ministerial  Association. 
R.  G.   MOSES,  President   Baptist  Ministerial 

Conference. 

J.  NEWTON  RITNER,  Secretary  Baptist  Minis- 
terial Conference. 

JOHN  ALEXANDER,  Chairman  Executive  Com- 
mittee Sabbath  Alliance. 
JAMES  POLLOCK,  Supt.  U.  S.  Mint. 
O.  C.  BOSBYSHELL,  Coiner  U.  S.  Mint. 
J.  C.  BOOTH,  Melter  and  Refiner,  U.  S.  Mint. 
WM.  E.  DuBois,  Assayer  U.  S.  Mint. 
GEORGE  H.  STUART. 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  227 

JOSHUA  L.  BAILY. 
AMOS  R.  LITTLE,  and  many  others. 
— Saints1  Herald,  vol.  25,  p.  345. 

Whether  the  treatment  received  by  Latter  Day  Saints  is 
the  sole  cause  of  God's  displeasure  we  cannot  say.  Cer- 
tainly God  was  displeased  with  such  cruel  and  lawless 
proceedings,  whether  he  had  other  causes  for  displeasure 
or  not.  One  thing  is  certain,  the  nation  has  been  sorely 
vexed,  and  the  events  predicted  by  Joseph  Smith  have 
followed.  We  do  not  rejoice  in  this;  for  we  have  been 
taught  in  the  domestic  circle,  and  in  the  church  of  our 
choice— the  Latter  Day  Saint — to  revere  this  government 
as  based  on  the  grandest  and  best  principles  that  an 
earthly  government  ever  knew;  but  the  true  patriot  is 
not  he  who  blindly  applauds  every  administrative  act. 
He  who  loves  his  country,  while  he  rejoices  in  her  pros- 
perity and  success,  mourns  over  her  failures  and  follies. 
The  best  friends  any  government  ever  had,  were  not  those 
who  gave  unquestioned  approval,  but  those  who  pointed 
out  the  dangers  and  mistakes  of  her  administrators. 
When  Bays  by  implication  seeks  to  convict  Joseph  Smith 
and  the  Latter  Day  Saints  of  disloyalty  because  they  have 
pointed  out  the  dire  consequences  of  certain  legislative 
and  executive  acts,  he  may  impress  the  rabble  who  cheer 
at  the  sight  of  "Old  Glory,"  recognizing  nothing  greater 
than  the  emblem  that  floats  proudly  over  us;  but  he  will 
not  move  the  thoughtful  and  patriotic,  that  while  they 
love  the  old  flag,  look  beyond  the  emblem  to  the  sacred 
principles  that  have  sanctified  and  made  it  honorable. 

In  connection  with  the  prophecies  cited  by  Elder  Bays, 
and  which  we  have  considered  in  the  foregoing  pages,  we 
will  present  one  more,  delivered  by  Joseph  Smith,  Decem- 
•ber  27,  1832: 

And  after  your  testimony,  cometh  wrath  and  indignation 
upon  the  people;  for  after  your  testimony  cometh  the  testi- 
mony of  earthquakes,  that  shall  cause  groanings  in  the  midst 


228  REPLY   TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

of  her,  and  men  shall  fall  upon  the  ground,  and  shall  not  be 
able  to  stand.  And  also  cometh  the  testimony  of  the  voice  of 
thunderings,  and  the  voice  of  lightnings,  and  the  voice  of 
tempests,  and  the  voice  of  the  waves  of  the  sea,  heaving 
themselves  beyond  their  bounds.  And  all  things  shall  be 
in  commotion;  and  surely  men's  hearts  shall  fail  them;  for 
fear  shall  come  upon  all  people;  and  angels  shall  fly  through 
the  midst  of  heaven,  crying  with  a  loud  voice,  sounding  the 
trump  of  God,  saying,  Prepare  ye,  prepare  ye,  O  inhabitants 
of  the  earth,  for  the  judgment  of  our  God  is  come:  behold, 
and  lo,  the  Bridegroom  cometh,  go  ye  out  to  meet  him. 
— Doctrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  85,  par.  25. 

Earthquakes  were  known  occasionally  in  very  remote 
times,  but  the  alarming  increase  of  this  phenomenon  is 
appalling.  We  herewith  submit  a  table  prepared  by  Mr. 
Mallet  and  published  in  a  work  called  "Facts  for  the  Times" 
page  137: 

No.  No.  of  years.     Average. 

Those  recorded  before  A.  D.  1  58.       1700.         1  in  29  years. 

Thence  to  the  end  of  9th  century,     197.        900.         1  in  4  years. 
15th       "  532.        600.        1  in  1  year. 

18th       "          2804.         300.         9  in  1      " 
"  to  1850  3240.          50.       64  in  1      " 

1868  5000.  18.     277  in  1      " 

Of  destructive  earthquakes,  such  as  have  overthrown  cities 
and  destroyed  many  lives,  the  number  registered  is  about  as 
follows:  — 

No.     No.  of  years.      Average. 

From  B.  c.  1700  to  A.  D.  96,         (1796)  16.  1  in  112  years. 

From  A.  D.      96  to       1850,         (1754)          204.  1  in      8      " 

From        1850     to        1865,  (15)  15.  1  in      1   year. 

From        1865     to        1868,  (3)  15.  5  in      1       " 

Space  will  not  permit  us  to  speak  of  these  in  detail.  We 
are  all  familiar  with  the  accounts  of  fearful  destruction 
caused  by  them  of  late  years.  Nor  have  we  space  to 
mention  the  fearful  devastation  wrought  by  the  cyclone, 
which,  prior  to  1832,  was  rarely  if  ever  known.  A  special 
mention  is  made  in  this  prediction  of  the  *  'voice  of  the 
waves  of  the  sea,  heaving  themselves  beyond  their 
bounds."  This  phenomenon  was  not  known  to  any 
remarkable  extent  until  since  this  prediction  in  1832. 


REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS.  229 

We  will  here  append  a  few  of  the  many  extracts  at  hand 
regarding  this,  and  ask  the  reader  to  note  what  is  said  of 
the  "voice  of  the  waves": 

Burnett,  in  his  "Theory  of  the  Earth, "  remarks: — 

"Let  us  then  proceed  in  our  explication  of  this  sign,  the 
roaring  sea  and  waves,  applying  it  to  the  end  of  the  world.  I 
do  not  look  upon  this  ominous  noise  of  the  sea  as  the  effect  of  a 
tempest;  for  then  it  would  not  strike  such  terror  into  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  nor  make  them  apprehensive  of  some 
great  evil  coming  upon  the  world,  as  this  will  do.  What 
proceeds  from  visible  causes,  and  such  as  may  happen  in  a 
common  course  of  nature,  does  not  so  much  amaze  or  atf right 
us.  ...  And  such  a  troubled  state  of  the  waters  as  does  not 
only  make  the  sea  unmanageable,  but  also  strikes  terror  into 
all  the  maritime  inhabitants  that  live  within  the  view  or  sound 
of  it." 

Harper's  Magazine  for  1869  says:  — 

"That  most  horrible  phenomena,  the  tidal  wave,  how  many 
struggling  mortals  has  it  swept  back  into  the  deep!  Wha*t 
countless  ships  has  it  crushed  against  the  shores!  What 
mighty  cities  has  it  plundered  of  life  and  wealth,  strewing 
their  streets  with  the  ocean  sand,  and  peopling  their  palaces 
with  sea  monsters!" 

"I  saw  the  whole  surface  of  the  sea  rise  as  if  a  mountain 
side,  actually  standing  up.  Another  shock  with  a  fearful  roar 
now  took  place.  I  called  to  my  companions  to  run  for  their 
lives  on  to  the  pampa.  Too  late;  with  a  horrible  crush  the 
sea  was  on  us,  and  at  one  sweep  dashed  what  was  Iquique  on 
to  the  pampa.  I  lost  my  companions,  and  in  an  instant  was 
fighting  with  the  dark  waters.  The  mighty  waves  surged,  and 
roared,  and  leaped.  The  cries  of  human  beings  and  animals 
were  frightful." 

At  Arica,  the  British  vice-consul  was  an  eye-witness.  He 
exclaims: — 

"Gracious  God,  what  a  sight!  I  saw  all  the  vessels  in  the  bay 
carried  out  irresistibly  to  sea;  anchors  and  chains  were  as  pack 
thread.  In  a  few  minutes  the  great  outward  current  stopped, 
stemmed  by  a  mighty  rising  wave,  I  should  judge  about  fifty 
feet  high,  which  came  in  with  an  awful  rush,  carrying  every- 
thing before  it,  in  its  terrible  majesty,  bringing  the  shipping 
with  it,  sometimes  turning  in  circles,  as  if  striving  to  elude 
their  fate." 

The  New  York  Tribune  of  Nov.  12,  18G8,  says:  — 

"The  tidal  disturbances  are  the  most  remarkable  and  exten- 
sive of  which  there  is  any  record.  It  is  said  their  velocity  was 
about  a  thousand  miles  an  hour.  Both  the  great  ocean  waters  of 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  have  been  agitated  in  their  whole 


230  REPLY   TO   D.   H.   BAYS. 

extent.  We  mention  in  particular  the  tidal  waves  at  St. 
Thomas,  and  all  the  neighboring  islands,  which  were  full  fifty 
feet  in  height.  ...  It  is  said  by  those  who  have  witnessed  these 
waves  that  the  ocean's  roar  is  exceedingly  frightful.'" 

The  N.  Y.  Tribune  of  Nov.  12,  18G9,  says:  — 

"Later  and  fuller  details  are  every  day  increasing  the  inter- 
est with  which  scientific  observers  regard  the  recent  earth- 
quakes and  tidal  disturbances,  and  confirming  our  first 
impression  that  these  convulsions  of  nature  would  prove  to  be 
among  the  most  remarkable  and  extensive  of  which  there  is  any 
icritten  record." 

The  New  York  Mercantile  Journal  for  November,  1808,  thus 
soberly  describes  our  times: — 

"Old  mother  earth  has  been  indulging  in  some  old  [odd] 
caprices  within  the  last  ten  years,  the  variety  and  frequency  of 
her  antics  having  especially  increased  during  her  last  three 
annual  revolutions.  Tornadoes,  water-spouts  by  land  as  well  as 
at  sea,  freshets,  volcanic  eruptions,  and  earthquakes  have 
become  of  almost  daily  occurrence,  and  of  continually 
augmenting  intensity.  Moreover,  they  embrace  a  larger  and 
larger  area  of  territory  at  each  recurrence.  The  last  shock, 
which  so  fearfully  devastated  South  America,  was  felt  over  one- 
third  of  the  earth's  surface.  These  portentous  phenomena  are 
seriously  engaging  the  attention  of  the  scientific  world.  The 
remark  that  they  only  seem  to  us  more  frequent,  because  our 
means  of  communication  are  more  complete  and  rapid,  and 
that  we  now  hear  from  all  parts  of  the  globe  simultaneously, 
will  not  explain  the  matter,  since  the  late  commotions  have  been 
attended  by  disturbances  of  boi  \\  land  and  sea  in  parts  of  the 
earth  which  have  been  constantly  accessible  for  centuries,  that 
were  totally  unparalleled  in  previous  history.  The  change  of 
the  gulf-stream  from  its  course,  and  the  alteration  of  climates, 
have  been  some  of  these  increased  marvels." — "Facts  for  the 
Times,"  pp.  147-149. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  for  November  15,  1871,  contained 
the  following  summary  of  calamities  for  that  year: 

The  year  1871  will  hardly  be  considered  in  history  a  year  of 
grace.  In  point  of  fatality  to  human  life,  and  destruction  to 
material  values  by  extraordinary  natural  causes,  no  year  in  the 
history  of  the  world  can  equal  it.  Overwhelmed  as  we  are  by 
our  own  disaster,  we  have  given  little  attention  to  what  has 
been  transpiring  abroad,  and  have  almost  come  to  consider 
ourselves  the  only  sufferers.  The  retrospect,  however,  is  a 
terrible  one.  War,  famine,  pestilence,  fire,  wind  and  water, 
and  ice,  have  been  let  loose  and  done  their  worst,  and  with 
such  appalling  results,  and  with  such  remarkable  phenomena 
accompanying  them,  that  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  men  have 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  231 

sometimes  thought  the  end  of  the  world  had  come.  We  have 
seen  our  own  fair  city  laid  in  ashes,  throughout  almost  its 
entire  business  limits,  and  seventy  thousand  people  left  home- 
less. On  that  same  night,  the  conflagration  swept  through 
Northern  Wisconsin  and  Michigan,  sweeping  village  after 
village  with  horrible  loss  of  life,  and  ruining  thousands  of 
acres  of  timber,  the  cutting  and  milling  of  which  formed  the 
main  industry  of  that  region.  Illinois,  Minnesota,  Indiana, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Kansas,  Missouri,  and  California, 
the  Alleghenies,  the  Sierras,  and  the  Rocky  Mountains  have 
been  ravaged  by  fire,  destroying  immense  amounts  of  property 
and  entailing  wide-spread  suffering.  Chicago  is  not  the  only 
cit}'  which  has  suffered.  Peshtigo,  Manistee,  Cacheville  and 
Vallejo,  Cal.,  Urbana,  Darmstadt,  and  Geneva,  under  the  Alps, 
have 'all  been  visited  by  terrible  fires;  and  the  torch  of  the 
incendiary  has  been  applied  successively  to  Louisville,  St.  . 
Louis,  Toronto,  Montreal  and  Syracuse. 

The  pestilence  has  walked  at  noonday.  The  cholera  ha,3 
steadily  travelled  from  Asia  west-ward  through  Europe,  and 
our  despatches  of  yesterday  announced  its  arrival  at  New 
York  Quarantine.  One  of  the  most  appalling  plagues  of 
modern  times,  arising  from  yellow  fever,  has  swept  over 
portions  of  south  America,  and  in  Buenos  Ayres  alone,  28,000 
bodies  were  buried  in  one  cemetery.  Persia  has  been  almost 
depopulated  by  the  plague,  which  has  been  rendered  all  the 
more  terrible  by  the  added  horrors  of  famine;  and  now,  in  our 
own  country,  small-pox  has  appeared  as  an  epidemic  in  nearJy 
every  large  city. 

Storms,  in  their  various  manifestations,  have  never  been  so 
destructive  before.  In  one  night,  a  river  in  India  suddenly 
rises,  swollen  by  a  storm,  and  sweeps  away  an  entire  city, 
destroying  3,000  houses,  and  utterly  prostrating  the  crops.  The 
little  French  seaport  town  of  Pornic  has  been  almost  utterly 
destroyed  by  a  tidal  wave.  The  icebergs  of  the  Arctic  have 
caught  and  imprisoned  within  their  impassable  walls  thirty- 
three  whalers,  inflicting  a  loss  of  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars 
upon  the  .city  of  New  Bedford,  and  seriously  crippling  an 
important  branch  of  industry.  St.  Thomas  has  been  devastated 
by  a  hurricane  which  left  6,000  people  homeless  and  strewed  its 
coasts  with  wrecks.  A  typhoon,  of  terrible  power,  has  swept 
along  the  Chinese  coast,  destroying  everything  in  its  course, — 
towns,  shipping,  and  life.  A  hurricane  at  Halifax  has  inflicted 
a  severe  blow  upon  English  shipping.  The  storms  on  the  Eng- 
lish coast  have  never  been  so  severe  before,  nor  so  fruitful  in 
maritime  disasters.  A  tidal  wave  at  Galveston  swept  off  all  the 
shipping  in  port.  A  tornado  has  swept  through  Canada,  doing 
serious  damage  in  Toronto,  Montreal,  and  Quebec.  The  island 
of  Formosa  has  been  nearly  destroyed  by  an  earthquake. 


232  REPLY  TO   D.  H.   BAYS. 

Add  to  these  the  unusual  crop  of  murders  and  suicides  in  this 
country,  the  alarming  increase  of  railroad  and  steamboat 
disasters,  the  monstrous  villainies  which  have  been  brought  to 
light  in  public  offices  and  private  corporations,  the  Franco- 
German  war  with  its  attendant  horrors,  and  the  statement  of 
the  astronomers  that  there  has  been  an  explosion  in  the  sun, 
and  that  two  or  three  comets  are  just  now  in  danger  of  losing 
their  tails  by  their  proximity  to  that  orb, — and  we  may  be 
justified  in  assuming  that  the  year  1871  will  be  known  in  future 
calendars  as  the  Black  Year. — Saints'  Herald,  vol.  18,  p.  736. 

What  an  alarming  list  of  casualties  is  this,  and  yet  the 
expectation  of  the  Tribune  that  1871  would  "be  known  in 
future  calendars  as  the  black  year,"  has  not  been  realized; 
for  compared  with  subsequent  years  it  has  not  been 
remarkable.  Storms,  tempests,  earthquakes,  and  devour- 
ing fires  have  swept  the  earth  with  the  "besom  of 
destruction,"  ever  since. 

The  awful  character  of  the  recent  disaster  at  Galveston, 
Texas,  defies  all  description,  nor  could  we  in  a  volume 
mention  the  numerous  other  catastrophes  almost  as 
destructive.  That  this  young  man  foresaw,  or  at  least 
foretold  all*  this  accurately  is  wonderful,  and  can  be 
accounted  for  only  upon  the  theory  of  divine  direction. 

We  might  continue  indefinitely  instances  of  marvelous 
fulfillment  of  his  predictions,  but  we  must  forbear.  In 
every  department  .of  this  little  volume  we  have  had  an 
earnest  desire  to  %.pje^ni,rfnpre  of  the  many  affirmative 
evidences  at  hand  and  accumulating,  but  have  been  con- 
stantly admonished  by  the  thought  that  to  make  it  too 
voluminous  would  defeat  the  object  of  its  publication,  as 
it  would  make  it  too  expensive  for  general  distribution. 
We  have  therefore  confined  ourselves  principally  to  a 
refutation  of  Elder  Bays'  theories.  We  trust  that  wher- 
ever this  little  volume  is  read  it  will  incite  the  reader  to  a 
fuller  and  more  complete  investigation  of  the  glorious 
principles  that  we  could  but  mention  in  this  treatise.  If 
any  one  has  entertained  the  delusive  thought  that  Elder 


REPLY  TO  D.  H.  BAYS.  233 

Bays  possesses  any  advantage  in  fighting  this  Great 
Latter-Day  Work  in  consequence  of  his  former  connec- 
tion with  it,  we  think  a  perusal  of  this  little  book  will 
disabuse  his  mind. 

The  Lord  has  certainly  dealt  wondrously  in  these  latter 
times,  and  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes. 

Elder  Bays'  closing  chapter  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a 
letter  written  to  "Eider  T.  E.  L.,:)  but  as  it  is  a  rehash  of 
what  has  already  been  considered,  we  will  not  take  space 
to  examine  it. 

We  now  send  forth  this  work  realizing  its  weakness  and 
incompleteness,  but  trusting  that  in  the  blessing  of  God  it 
will  serve  to  enlighten  the  mind  of  the  true  seeker  for 
truth,  and  shield  the  uninformed  against  the  seductive 
wiles  of  the  adversary  of  souis,  who,  having  allured  one 
soul  from  the  way  of  truth,  seeks  to  uso  him  to  compass 
the  destruction  of  others. 


4,  ow'»* 

i-v"  • 


INDEX. 


Abbot,  John  S.  C.,  on  slaves  and 
masters,  210. 

A  church  without  ambassadors. 
69. 

Action  of  1835  and  18T8  not  illib- 
eral, 153-156. 

Affidavit  of  N.  D.  Earl,  215.  216. 

Alexander  Campbell  a  patriarch, 
75. 

An  apostle  must  be  a  witness  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  answered, 
72. 

An  apostle,  qualifications  of,  70. 

'•And  they  shall  also  call  upon 
other  nations,"  defined.  207. 

Angell's  statement  on  Book  of 
Mormon  characters,  122. 

Answer  to  teeter-board  illustra- 
tion. 88. 

Anthon,  Professor,  Martin  Har- 
-  ris  visits,  115.  116;  statement 
of,  shown  to  be  false,  119;  on 
Book  of  Mormon  characters, 
123-125;  theory  of,  not  tena- 
ble, 138. 

Apostles,  work  of,  affirmed  to 
be  ambassadorial,  64.  65;  work 
of,  other  than  ambassadorial, 
68;  how  called  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  93-97;  visit  of, 
to  Samaria,  147,  148. 

Apostolic  office,  the  rule  of  suc- 
cession, 72,  73. 

Architecture  of  Central  America, 
Short,  127. 

Argument,  against  Reorganiza- 
tion, answered,  61,  62;  against 
apostles,  answered,  62-64,  80,  81 ; 
on  foundation,  answered,  82-87. 

Argus,  Quincy,  Illinois,  on  exo- 
dup  from  Missouri,  220. 

Bancroft,  A.  A.,  statement  of, 
concerning  slab  in  Ohio,  130. 

Bancroft  on  Haun's  Mill  massa- 
cre, 213. 


Baptisms,  are  there  two  Chris- 
tian, 146,  147. 

Baptisms  in  Hebrews  6  said  to  re- 
fer to  washings,  146. 

Bays,  D.  H.,  his  book  indorsed,  3; 
his  birth,  4;  his  family  hear  the 
gospel,  4;  remove  to  Beaver  Is- 
land and  join  Strang,  5;  he 
joins  the  Reorganization,  5; 
ordained  an  elder,  5;  his  mis- 
sionary work.  5;  ordained  a 
seventy,  5;  his  ministerial 
trials,  5;  his  political  career 
and  the  Bays-Hunt  contro- 
versy, 5,  6;  his  further  minis- 
terial labors,  6,  7;  his  resigna- 
tion, 7,  8;  unites  with  the 
Baptist  Church,  9;  unites  with 
the  Christian  Church,  9;  gar- 
bles quotations,  13;  misquotes, 
13-18;  misrepresents  history 
touching  O.  Cowdery  and  J. 
Smith,  19;  misrepresents  Book 
of  Mormon,  20;  misrepresents 
duties  of  patriarch,  21 ;  his  tes- 
timony as  to  healings,  21;  mis- 
represents his  field  of  labor,  21, 
22;  his  former  statement  touch- 
ing miraculous  power,  23;  mis- 
statement  in  regard  to  Strang's 
organization,  24;  misstatement 
in  regard  to  Kirtland  endow- 
ment, 24;  misstatement  in  re- 
gard to  the  Twelve,  25;  mis- 
statement  concerning  J.  W. 
Briggs,  25;  concerning  Charles 
Derry,  26-28;  concerning  the 
statement  of  M.  Harris,  28; 
misrepresents  Book  of  Mormon 
witnesses.  29;  denies  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  teaches  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,  32;  misrepre- 
sents his  personal  experiences, 
33;  concerning  George  Miller, 
33;  misrepresents  Higbees,  35; 

235 


236 


INDEX. 


moral  status  as  a  witness,  35,  36; 
misrepresents  Joseph   and   the 
church,    35-37;    claims    superi- 
ority,   38;    he    and    his     book 
children     of     Providence,     39; 
Spalding  Romance  abandoned, 
39;    misrepresents    foundation 
of   the    church,    40;    misrepre- 
sents     statement      concerning 
Sam  and  Nepbi,  40;  argument 
on    spiritual    gifts.    41;     treat- 
ment   upon    miracles,    42,    43; 
charges    as    to    character    an- 
swered by  Derry,  43,  44;  testi- 
fies   of    the   good  character  of 
the    Reorganized    Church,    44; 
his    astounding     presumption, 
46;   the    commission  analyzed» 
47,  48;    on  the  gifts,  49-57;  on 
sickness  of  J.  Smith,  53,  54;   on 
physicians,     54-56;      his    chal- 
lenge, 56;   repeats  false  charge, 
58 ;  on  corruption,  58 ;  gives  list 
of    officers,    59;    misrepresents 
Elder  Kelley,  60;  argument  on 
apostles,    62;     contradicts    his 
own    theory,    64;     takes    issue 
with  Peter  and  others,  65,  66; 
on  safeguard,  67;   on  ambassa- 
dors, 68,  69;  on  qualifications  of 
apostles,  70;    wants  rule  of  suc- 
cession,  72;    on  necessary    of- 
fices.  78;   on  organization,   79; 
argument  of,  on  revelation  and 
foundation,     answered,     82-87; 
on  Melchisedec  priest,  90;    on 
priesthood,    91,   92;    on  calling 
apostles,   93;    contradicts  him- 
self,      96;      misrepresents      J. 
Smith,  96,  97;    on  impertinent 
questions,  98;   final  conclusions 
of,   on  authority,  99 ;   on  rejec- 
tion of  the  church,  100;   on  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  103;  misrep- 
resents   defenders   of  Book  of 
Mormon,     117;      misrepresents 
and    contradicts    himself,    121, 
122;  sums  up  the  case,  140;  four 
propositions  of,  144;  contradic- 
tory positions  of ,  148 ;    charges 
falsely,    152;    not    aware    that 
polygamy    was    doubted,    156; 
treatise  of,   on   marriage   arti- 
cle,   summed    up,     160;    omits 
from  Brigham  Young's   testi- 


mony, 178:  ten  conclusions  of, 
faulty,  180;  inconsistency  of, 
in  gathering  testimony,  182. 
183;  testimony  of,  to  the  good 
character  of  Joseph  Smith,  of 
Lamoni,  183;  false  basis  of, 
concerning  gathering,  192; 
trickery  of,  in  misquoting,  196, 
197;  misquotes  section  100,  200; 
unsafe  to  accept  anything 
from,  without  investigation, 
200;  continued  misrepresenta- 
tions of,  201 ;  ten  propositions 
of,  on  Rebellion  revelation,  205; 
technical  point  of,  in  regard  to 
slaves,  208;  admits  injustice  of 
Saints'  treatment,  212,  213; 
comments  of,  on  Rebellion 
prophecy,  218,  219;  confesses 
scenes  of  Independence  and 
Carthage  can  never  be  re- 
peated, 225;  will  not  move  the 
thoughtful  and  patriotic,  227; 
has  no  advantage  by  reason  of 
previous  membership,  232,  !^33. 

Bennett,  John  C..  and  polygamy, 
160;  exposed,  163,164. 

Bible  names.  92,  93. 

Bickerton,  William,  faction  of, 
opposed  to  polygamy,  188. 

Blair,  W.  W.,  on  the  remnants, 
210,  211. 

Blood  of  the  Saints,  the  prophecy 
concerning,  fulfilled,  212-214. 

Book  of  Mormon,  misrepresented, 
20;  how  written,  126;  charac- 
ters and  shorthand,  133,  134; 
and  lay  ing  on  of  hands,  150,  151. 

Books  inscribed  on  tablets  of  dif- 
ferent substances,  136. 

Braden,  Clark,  his  work  in  ex- 
posing Mormonism  indorsed,  3. 

Brass,  Hebrew  writing  on,  135. 

Brewster,  J.  C.,  faction  of,  op- 
posed to  polygamy,  188. 

Briggs,  J.  W.,  misrepresented,  25. 

Burnett  on  waves  of  the  sea,  229. 

Calhoun  to  Joseph  Smith,  217. 
Calling  of  apostles  in  ancient  and 

modern  times,  93-97. 
Campbell,    A.,    against   Bays   on 

the  calling  of  Matthias,  65,  66; 

a  patriarch,  75;   versus  Bays, 

103. 


INDEX. 


237 


Catlin,  George,  on  Jews  and 
American  Indians,  1,32,  133. 

Cause  of  the  Saints  has  been 
plead.  225,  226. 

Central  American  hieroglyphics, 
Short,  127.  128;  Bancroft,  128; 
Priest,  128:  Delafield,  128,  129; 
LePlongeon.  129. 

Challenge  to  Mormons,  56. 

Character  of  Reorganization, 
B?iys'  estimate  of,  44. 

Charges  made  known  to  be  false, 
15-2.  153. 

Christian  Church,  humiliating 
confession  of,  4. 

Christian  Publishing  House's 
inconsistency,  4;  concession  of, 
38. 

Church  and  Joseph  Smith  mis- 
represented, 35,  36. 

Church  organized  anciently  and 
in  modern  times  without  apos- 
tles, T9,  80. 

Church,  the,  its  true  foundation, 
40;  a,  without  ambassadors,  69. 

Citizens  of  Philadelphia,  petition 
of,  226.  227. 

Comments  of-  Bays  on  Rebellion 
prophecy,  218,  219. 

Commission,  analyzed  by  Bays, 
47;  Bays'  position  concerning, 
answered,  47-51. 

Concession  of  Christian  Publish- 
ing House,  38. 

Contradictions  of  Egyptologists, 
125,  126. 

Corinthians  first,  twelfth  chap- 
ter. Bays  on,  51. 

Corruption  among  thp  factions. 
58. 

Criticism  of  Bays  on  poisoning  of 
Joseph  Smith,  answered,  53,  54. 

Davis,  Chas.   H,   S.,   on  Book  of 

Mormon  characters,  122,  123. 
Deficiencies,      two      remarkable 

ones       in       the      Reorganized 

Church,  61. 
Democratic         Association        of 

Quincy,      Illinois,     resolutions 

of,  220,   221. 
Denial  that  Patriarch's  position 

is  a  salaried  one,  62. 
Derry,   Charles,    misrepresented, 

26-28;   answers  challenge  as  to 


miracles.  56.  57;  on  the  nature 
and  formation  of  the  church, 
76,  77;  on  high  priests,  9L;  on 
apostasy  and  gates  of  hell,  101- 
103. 

Doctrines  misrepresented,  143. 

Duties  of  apostles  other  than  am- 
bassadorial. 63. 

Earl.  N.  D..  affidavit  of,  215,  518. 

Earthquakes,  list  of,  from  A.  D.  1 
to  1868,  2;28. 

Egyptologists,  consulted  by  Bays, 
120,  121;  on  Book  of  Mormon 
characters,  answered,  125-140. 

Elder  Derry  answers  challenge  as 
to  miracles,  56,  57. 

Elders  not  to  do  the  work  of  apos- 
tles, 78. 

Emancipation  Proclamation, 

scope  and  effect  of,  208,  209. 

Emanupl,  Reverend  G.  J.,  on 
Palestine,  109,  110. 

Errors,  only  a  part  of,  exposed, 
13. 

Ethiopia,  where  located,  105-107. 

Ewing,  General,  his  order  of  ex- 
pulsion of  1863.  224,  225. 

Expositor,  the  Nauvoo,  165;  tes- 
timony of,  in  favor  of  the 
church,  165,  166. 

Factions,  corruption  among,  58. 

'•Facts  for  the  Times,''  on  earth- 
quakes, 228. 

Failure  to  obey  God,  consequent  s 
of.  200,  201. 

Faith,  the  only  abiding  gift,  Bays' 
position,  53;  different  kinds 
discussed,  4.45. 

False  logic,  about  corrupt  fac- 
tions, answered,  58,  59;  as  to 
organization,  answered.  60. 

Far-fetched  conclusion,  104. 

Final  conclusions  of  Bays  an- 
swered. 99. 

First  Presidency,  74. 

Fishing  River  revelation  consist- 
ent, 200,  201. 

Force,  possession  by,  not  contem- 
plated, 192-202. 

Ford,  Governor,  on  treatment  of 
the  Saints,  213.  214. 

Foundation  of  the  church  mis- 
represented, 40. 


238 


INDEX. 


Four  propositions  of  Bays  an- 
swered, 144-147. 

Fullmer,  David,  testimony  of,  on 
polygamous  revelation,  175. 

Galveston,  recent  disaster  at.  233. 

General  E wing's  order  of  expul- 
sion of  1863,  224.  225. 

Gifts,  faith  the  only  abiding  one, 
answered.  53. 

Giliium,  Cornelius,  sheriff,  state- 
ment of,  concerning  Zion's 
camp,  197,  198. 

Grover,  Thomas,  letter  of,  on 
polygamous  revelation,  176. 

Harper's  Magazine  on  tidal 
waves,  229. 

Harris,  Martin,  statement  of, 
misrepresented,  28;  visit  of,  to 
Professor  Anthon,  115. 

Haun's  Mill,  the  massacre  of,  213. 

Healing,  remarkable  case  of,  44- 
46;  neces.>ity  for,  past,  54;  ne- 
cessity for,  still  continues,  51, 
55. 

Hebrews  wrote  on  brass,  135-137. 

Higbees  misrepresented,  35. 

Holy  Ghost,  how  given,  147-151. 

Home,  Thomas  H.,  on  brass  tab- 
lets among  Jews,  136,  137. 

Hostility  not  the  intention  of 
Zion's  camp,  197,  198. 

Hyde,  John,  on  a  statement  of 
Joseph  Smith,  in  1843,  216. 

Illinois,  treatment  of  the  Saints 
in,  213,  214. 

Inferences  do  not  establish  guilt, 
157. 

Inspiration,  United  States  Gov- 
ernment founded  by,  219,  220. 

Isaiah  18:  1.  2,  104. 

Isaiah  29,  107-114;  covers  a  long 
period  of  time,  112. 

Jailer,  case  of,  considered,  145. 
Je^hro  and  Caleb,  ordinations  of, 

92. 
Jewish     origin      of     prehistoric 

Americans.  129-131. 
Joseph  and  Oliver,  ordination  of, 

88.  89. 
Joseph    Smith's    statements   not 

law  to  the  church,  81. 


Journal,  Mercantile,  on  caprices 

of  the  earth,  230. 
Judgment  and  resurrection,  151. 

Kelley,  W.  H.,  misrepresented, 
117,  118. 

Kimball,  H.  C.,  on  the  object  of 
Zion's  camp.  195. 

King-priest  argument  answered, 
90,  91. 

Kirtland  endowment  misrepre- 
sented, 24. 

Land  of  Zion  must  be  purchased 
196. 

Land  "shadowing  with  wings," 
104. 

Language  of  learned  men,  139. 

Laying  on  of  hands,  147-151; 
Bays  denies  Book  of  Mormon 
teaches,  32;  was  it  to  be 
handed  down,  148,  149;  and 
Book  of  Mormon.  150,  151. 

Lebanon  to  be  a  fruitful  field,  108. 

Lederer,  G.  R.,  converted  Jew, 
statement  of,  130,  131. 

Legal  case  concerning  spiritual 
gifts  answered,  41,  42. 

Letter  to  Calhoun  by  Joseph 
Smith,  217,  218. 

Liberality,  Bays  on  record  touch- 
ing, 153. 

Liberty,  Missouri,  meeting  of 
June  16,  1834,  and  reply  thereto, 
193,  194. 

Man  of  straw,  90. 

Marks,  William,  testimony  of, 
about  polygamy,  180,  181 ;  pur- 
port of  his  testimony,  181,  182; 
Bays  admits  veracity  of,  182. 

Marriage  artiele,  Bays  on,  159, 
160. 

Matthias,  case  of,  considered  by 
Bays,  65. 

Messenger,  Western,  of  Cincin- 
nati, Ohio,  on  Mormon  perse- 
cutions, 221-224. 

Miller,  George,  relation  of,  to  po- 
lygamy, 33,  34. 

Ministers  not  always  called 
through  a  prophet,  88. 

Miracles,  Bays'  treatment  of,  42, 
43;  in  the  Reorganization, 


INDEX. 


BIVR'  statement  concerning, 
44-46. 

Miraculous  power,  Bays'  state- 
ment concerning,  22;  Bays'  for- 
mer statements  of,  23;  contin- 
ued, 47-51. 

Misquotations,  from  Joseph 
Smith,  13.  14;  from  W,  H. 
Kelley .  1 5.  1 6.  18 :  Tullidge's  His- 
tory, 16;  Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 16,  18;  New  Testament, 
17;  Church  History,  17;  section 
100,  Book  of  Covenants,  196, 
197. 

Misrepresentations  touching 
apostles  and  prophets,  an- 
swered, 67.  68. 

Missouri,  not  to  lose  identity, 
220;  punishment  of,  severe,  224. 
.  Misstatement  of  the  case  by 
Bays,  211. 

Mistakes  may  have  been  made, 
201. 

Moidenke,  Charles  E.,  on  Book  of 
Mormon  characters,  123,  134; 
contradicts  himself.  134. 

Moral  status  of  -D.  H.  Bays,  35,  36. 

Mormons,  challenge  to,  answered, 


Names  of  the  Bible,  93,  93. 

Nations,  "And  they  shall  also 
call  upon  other,"  defined,  '207. 

New  Testament,  description  of 
ordinations  called  for,  and  an- 
swered, 73,  74;  record  not  full, 
76. 

Niven^,  J.  W.,  on  Jewish  writ- 
ings, 137. 

Nullification,  troubles  not  settled 
till  conclusion  of  civil  war.  204; 
Johnson's  Cyclopaedia  on,  204. 

Ordination,  of  officers,  73 ;  of  Jo- 
seph and  Oliver,  88,  89. 

Palestina,  June.  1897,  108-110; 
September.  1897,  111,  112. 

Patriarch.  75,  76;  duties  of,  mis- 
stated, 21;  receives  no  salary, 
62. 

Patriot,  the  true,  227. 

Paul  and  Peter  on  faith.  145. 

Pentecost,  Peter's  sermon  on,  150. 


Phelps,   W.  W.,  on  Harris'  testi- 
mony. 120. 
Philadelphia  citizens,  petition  of, 

226,  227. 

Plates  fastened  with  rings,  a  Jew- 
ish custom,  186. 

Poisoning,  the  case  of  Joseph 
Smith,  53. 

Polygamous  cases,  how  dealt 
with,  166,  167. 

Polygamy,  152;  forbidden,  37; 
Bays'  summary  on.  157;  evi- 
dence examined.  157-182;  testi- 
mony on,  from  Times  and  Sea- 
sons, 16L;  validity  of  testimony 
on,  examined,  162.  163;  some 

Erivately  taught,  181;  in  every 
iction,    asserted    and    denied, 

183,  189. 

Position,  that  apostles  are  am- 
bassadors only,  answered,  65; 

of  the  church  correctly  stated, 

143. 
Pratt,  P.    P.,    on  the  purpose  of 

Zion's  camp,  195,  196. 
Prehistoric  Americans  of  Jewish 

origin,  129-133. 

Presumption  of  Bays,  46,  66,  67. 
Priesthood    conferred   by   laying 

on  of  hands,  89. 
Priest  must  be  a  king,  90. 
Prophecy  of  December  27,  1832, 

227,  228. 

Propositions  presented  by  leaders 
of  Zion's  camp,  193,  199. 

Proposition  ten  on  Rebellion  reve- 
lation answered,  214. 

Providence,  Bays  and  his  book 
children  of,  39. 

Qualifications  of  an  apostle,  70. 

Rebellion,  revelation  on,  203;  ful- 
filled, 219. 

Remarkable  case  of  healing,  44- 
46. 

Remnants,  who  are  they,  210; 
revelation  fulfilled  in  regard  to, 
210. 

Reorganized  Church,  two  re- 
markable deficiencies  in,  61. 

Repentance  from  dead  works,  146. 

.Resolutions  of  Democratic  Asso- 
ciation, of  Quincy,  Illinois,  220, 
221. 


- 


INDEX. 


Resurrection  and  judgment,  151. 

Return  of  Israel  described  by 
Isaiah,  113^ 

Revelation,  the  foundation.  82; 
on  polygamy,  its  size,  173;  on 
the  Rebellion,  303:  on  the  Re- 
bellion published  before  fulfill- 
ment, 205. 

Rigdon.  Sidney,  faction  of,  op- 
posed to  polygamy,  188-185 

Rise  and  Fall  of  Confederate  Gov- 
ernment quoted,  v~06,  207. 

Robinson,  Ebenezer  and  Ange- 
lina, testimony  of.  189,  190. 

Robinson,  Ebenezer,  experience 
of,  in  the  Reorganization  told 
by  himself.  191. 

Ryder  a  patriarch,  75. 

Scriptures,  the,  do  they  teach  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  149.  150. 

Seaton.  Joseph  Smith's  letter  to, 
214,  215. 

Seeing  Christ  not  essential  to 
apostleship,  70,  71. 

Short  on  the  architecture  of. 
Central  America,  127. 

Simon's  case,  150. 

Slavery.  Bays'  quibbfe  concern- 
ing, 208. 

Smith,  Emma.  fcestinio'ny/«fVc6n^ 
cerning    polygamy,     1(>9; "  L7Q-;. 
Bays'     testimony     of    charac-^ 
ter  of,   170:    statements   of,   in 
1856  and   1857,    170.    171 ;    testi- 
mony of.  on  polygarno 
lation,  179.  180. 

•Smith.      Hyrum,      alleged 
wives  of.  171.  172. 

Smith,  Joseph,  word  of,  said  to 
be  law,  152;  connection  of, 
with  polygamy,  156,  157; 
alleged  fiv/e  wives  of.  167, 
168;  on  the  object  of  the  ex- 
pedition to  Missouri,  192.  198; 
on  the  equipment  of  Zion's 
camp.  194;  to  Editor  Seaton, 
214.  215:  prophesies  of  Rebellion 
in  1843,  216;  to  Calhoun,  217, 
218. 

Soby.  Leonard,  testimony  of.  on 
polygamous  revelation.  174.  175. 

Spalding Romance  abandoned.  39. 

Specimen  of  Bays'  logic,  100,  101. 

Spiritual   gitCC   Bays'  argument 


on,  41 ;  stated  as  a  legal  case, 
4L;  and  charity,  Bays'  position 
on,  answered,  51,  52. 

States,  Southern,  called  upon 
other  nations.  206.  207. 

Statements,  of  Egyptologists 
quoted,  122-125;  of  Joseph 
Smith  not  law  to  the  church, 
81. 

Story  of  an  old  colored  man,  139. 

Strang,  organization  of,  misrep- 
resented, 24;  faction  of.  at  first 
opposed  to  polygamy,  185-187. 

Straw  man,  90. 

Superiority  claimed  by  Bays,  38. 

Syllogism  answered,  86.  87. 

Teeter-board  illustration,  87. 

Ten  propositions  by  Bays  on  Re- 
bellion revelation,  205;  re- 
viewed, 205-232. 

Testimony,  of  the  eight  witnesses, 
141,  142;  on  polygamy  from 
Times 'kn0  .Seasons,  161;  in  re- 
gard to  Jj^fcph  Smith's  five 


wives,  167,fjl68i  of  Martin 
Harris  not  cont^fcictory,  118, 
119.  */ 

Thompson,  Charles  B.,  faction  of, 
opposed  to  polygamy,  188. 

Thompson,  Mercy  R.,    testimony 
of,  on, poly  gamy,  171,  172;  testi- 

.   mony  of<   on   polygamy,   criti- 
cised, M£,~  174. 

,  not  logic,  107. 
i,  Chicago,  on  year  1871, 


ibune.  N.  Y  ,  on  tidal  disturb- 
ances, 229,  230. 

True  foundation  of  the  church, 
40. 

Twelve  misrepresented,  25. 

Twenty-ninth  of  Isaiah  fulfilled 
today,  112. 

Two  separate  baptisms,  147. 

Uuion  Bible  Dictionary  on  Jew- 
ish writings.  137. 

United  States  Government 
founded  by  inspiration,  219, 
220. 

Untruthful  assertions,  107. 


Validity    of 
lygamy 


INDEX. 


241 


Walker,  Lovina,  testimony  of, 
hearsay,  168. 

Waves  heaving  themselves  be- 
yond bounds,  229-232. 

Western  Messenger,  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  on  Mormon  persecutions, 
221-224. 

Wight,  Lyman.  on  Zion  and  obe- 
dience, 194,  195. 

Witnesses  to  Book  of  Mormon, 
misrepresented,  29,  30;  true 
testimony  of,  29,  30. 

Witnesses,  sworn  and  not  sworn, 
163;  on  polygamous  revelation 
do  not  agree,  176-178. 

Wives,  the  alleged  five,  of  Toseph 


Smith,  167, 168;  the  alleged  two,  ^ 
of  Hyrum  Smith,  171,  172. 
Work  needs  no  apology,  201,  2Qjp£ 

Young,  Brigbam,  testimony  of, 
on  polygamous  revelation,  178. 

Young,  Emily  D.  P.,  testimony 
of,  167, 168;  cross-examined,  169. 

Zion's  camp,  did  not  contemplate 
forcible  possession,  192;  H.  C. 
Kimball  on,  195;  P.  P.  Pratt  on 
purpose  of,  195,  196;  hostility 
not  intention  of.  196,  197; 
propositions  of  the  leaders  of. 
198,  199. 


f. 


^^^Lii,.^^ 

."..;    (  "'-.«•,'.''  .•'•''' 

^.  .•'^VjOiio  Aou 


0} 


•tiuuHjqi^i   aq;  jo  ^ 


pasodun  gq  \\\\\. 


11  y;  i?  jo 


.10    ^ooq  y. 


HO    "0^9 

jo   snssi    ^q^%  JGJ    u^do   aq   [JIM  Xjiucji^x  3qx  —  *l 


